Absolutely not. Between the unions who thought they should get all the money the company made and company management that couldn't say no to the unions and could not market a quality car until the last few years, Chrysler, Ford and GM should have been allowed to go out of business. Instead, Obama nationalized GM and Chrysler.

I for one will not buy another car made by those three companies.

We need to find high end things to build. The US work force is just too expensive to build commodity stuff.

Boeing manages to sell aircraft around the world. This page lists some 800 orders for one aircraft.

List of Boeing 787 orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm in the computer business, software for large, complex systems. At this time we don't have a credible competitor outside the US. Maybe in five or ten years, but not now.

The PC manufacturing business on the other hand is a commodity business. Anybody can build one. Asia does this very well and we can't compete.

No. There's enough damage done to society, and not just the users themselves that drugs should not be legalized. Drug dealers at the middleman and above level are one instance where I support the death penalty.

Here's the article I read claiming federal employees were paid 60% more than private sector employees.

How Americans Are Overtaxed to Overpay the Civil Service | The Heritage Foundation

Some of this might be hype but there's another article that makes a similar claim.

Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com

Regardless of the exact percentage, salary and benefits need to be no more than equivalent to private sector.

Here's an article describing how the number of food stamp recipients has increased.
Senate cuts $12 billion from food stamp budget as record numbers apply for benefits

Unfortunately this article also shows how the Democrats turned a $12 billion cut into a $26 billion giveaway

Conduct workplace searches, make sure the companies have the required paperwork. Bus tickets for those who don't have the required visas. I'd also step up border enforcement big time for a year or two to show we mean business.

Send the illegals home and give the unemployed better odds at finding jobs, as noted here Hiring Illegal Immigrants for Katrina Reconstruction : NPR

If Congress thinks the vetoed item is important enough, they can write a new bill and override the president's veto. If it's just a giveaway to get a Congressman's vote, then the president saved us some money.

This "50% of the people don't pay taxes" meme is absurd and has to stop. they may not pay federal income taxes, but they still play state, local, FICA, Social Security, Medicare, and, most importantly, pay sales tax, which is regressive

The sign of a Real American--refusing to buy american made products. "I'll just line the pockets of a foreign corporation instead of a domestic one. That'll show 'em!" You betcha.

A part of me thinks this would only lead to a worker shortage and/or inflationary pressure, because what kind of American wants to earn an "illegal's wage"? Not such a good thing to do during a recovery.

The people who pay income tax also pay these same taxes. Those who have an income and aren't paying any income taxes need to pay income taxes.

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

Explain to me why I should buy junk just because the junk is made by an American company. Note that Toyota, which is the manufacturer of my current car, does have plants in the USA.

Note that American manufacturers have a better quality rating than your beloved Toyota, and your reasoning is bullshit.

so dogzilla, you seem an unreconstructed supply sider, someone who manages to be able to recycle all the hoary olde sentences despite the pounding they've been subjected to at the hands of a reality that, repeat though supply-siders will, does not and will not act in the way their metaphysics holds it will.

but are you sympathetic to the tea party?
you may have posted something to this effect earlier but i missed it.

Yes I am sympathetic to the tea party, primarily for the economic and individual accountability considerations.

As far as the social issues, to the extent I'm a tea party member. I've never attended any of their rallies but did consider it.

Abortion, against it, but not an election issue for me except for federal funding for abortion outside the cases of rape, incest and health of the mother.

Gay rights, don't care, not an election issue.

Illegal immigration. Against amnesty. For deporting all illegal immigrants so they can start over at the end of the line in their home country. An election issue.

Death penalty. In favor of it in cases where the accused admits it, where the accused is caught in the act or on video, or where the evidence has been carefully examined and validated. Minor election issue.

For equal rights. Against special rights for special classes like affirmative action. Not an election issue.

Criminal law - for sending the criminal to jail. Sheriff Joe in Arizona has the right idea. Minor election issue.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------

As this article points out, quality is evaluated over the short term
Was Toyota's Quality That Great To Begin With?

I keep cars until they are dead. My history of why I won't buy another GM, Ford or Chrysler car

1969 Pontiac Firebird - Electrical problems, radiator problems. If I drove it in the rain it would fill up with water thanks to body rust. Dead around 75K miles

1974 Pontiac Firebird - Timing belt/chain, busted ball joint, radiator problems, electrical problems, bolts holding transmission in place came loose and transmission partially fell out. Dead around 75K miles.

1980 Chevrolet Chevette - Fan belt pulley on crankshaft busted at 9K miles. Timing belt twice. Rusted so badly it would no longer pass inspection. Dead about 100K miles.

1983 Plymouth Horizon - Oil leaks, misc mechanical problems. Dead at 100K miles.

1990 Toyota Camry - no repairs outside normal maintenance. Gave it to my stepdaughter at 120K miles, dead around 160K miles.

1996 Toyota Corolla - replaced the starter. My wife insisted I replace the timing belt at 200K miles. Still running with 220K miles.

2001 Honda Accord - One significant repair, don't remember what. Still running at 150K miles.

Just out of curiosity, Dogzilla, what's your take on the lack of Tea Party protests between 2000 and 2008? I'm sure you're aware it was under the Bush administration that we saw tax cuts without corresponding spending decreases, expensive wars without increased taxes or decreased spending to pay for them, Federal bailouts for the banking collapse without any tax increases or spending decreases to compensate, and a general set of fiscally irresponsible behaviors from the Republican executive and Republican (until 2006, of course) legislature. These things would seem to me to be huge deals to anyone that has strong feelings about fiscal responsibility and accountability. Do you think it has to do with, perhaps, a lack of perspective with "your guy" is in office? Or do you think it's deeper, that these people don't actually care about fiscal responsibility but are using it as a pretext for undermining the president? Or a third option?

Individual results have nothing to do with empirical data.

And everyone knows that American cars built in the 80s were shit--that's no secret. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with manufacturing standards today.

Again, you got nothing.

Yes I am sympathetic to the tea party, primarily for the economic and individual accountability considerations.

As far as the social issues, to the extent I'm a tea party member. I've never attended any of their rallies but did consider it.

Abortion, against it, but not an election issue for me except for federal funding for abortion outside the cases of rape, incest and health of the mother.

Gay rights, don't care, not an election issue.

Illegal immigration. Against amnesty. For deporting all illegal immigrants so they can start over at the end of the line in their home country. An election issue.

Death penalty. In favor of it in cases where the accused admits it, where the accused is caught in the act or on video, or where the evidence has been carefully examined and validated. Minor election issue.

For equal rights. Against special rights for special classes like affirmative action. Not an election issue.

Criminal law - for sending the criminal to jail. Sheriff Joe in Arizona has the right idea. Minor election issue.

As far as the tea party being a hate group, no. I have a couple cousins who have participated in these rallies. They are just as rational and non-violent as anyone else.

The proposition 8 supporters are another story. A Google search for threats by proposition 8 supporters turned up a number of hits.

Proposition 8 Email Threats | abc30.com

Clip Syndicate Video: Worship.Name

Might I add, those shitty products that America was manufacturing in the 80s is one of the primary reasons conservatives get all misty eyed and nostalgic when they fondly recall the "boom" era of Reaganomics.

You can't have it both ways, chief.

I think that people in general thought they were doing well thru those years and weren't as likely to complain. I think the combination of the economic crash combined with the huge jump in the deficit projected to continue for years was the main reason for the protests now. I don't see it as a pretext for undermining the president.

So let me see if I understand. Drug dealers? Execute them. Illegals, buy'em a bus ticket and tighten our borders. Poor people who have problems buying food and medicine, fuck'em they're not paying their fair share. And American made products are crap so I'm not buying them, the people that make them are lazy jack wads... don't care about them.

Did I miss anything?

So since drugs have a negative effect on society why not get rid of all negative effects on society? I mean as long as you're going to go all big brother on druggies why not go after alcohol and trans fats? I mean it seems kind of counter productive to your smaller government theme but what the heck. Bar tenders and bar owners... up against this wall please. Own a McDonalds? Join the bar owners and bartenders.

Oh, you worked at Ford for 27yrs? Really, I don't care fuck you.

Got nothing to eat? Stop being lazy, get a job or starve.

Here illegally? Here the big government, that I rail against, is going to get bigger so we can by you a bus ticket home. Get out of the country and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


Seriously I read your responses and they sounds like two things. One- I got/or am getting mine, fuck the rest of you lazy bastards. And two- I'll keep suggesting shit that's either been tried and failed or studied and shown not to work because the only other option is going to make me crack open my wallet and pay for all the crap I supported for the past eight years.

You come up with silly, simple unworkable solutions (most of which have been tried repeatedly and shown to fail) to serious complicated problems. And seem to have serious dislike for the US population in general. Maybe you should move some place else?

tea party?

what the fuck is this, boston in the 1700s?

let's get back on track with what's ailing us now, not some bimbo's idea of what we think we're thinking...

(damn, i hate getting involved in politics; and ya wanna know why? 'cause nobody knows what the fuck he/she is talking about - just what he/she hears on cnn/faux/abc/nbc/abc/nytimes/onion/whatever...

rant over...)

should i color this yellow?

I get where youre coming from on this, but in the past 5-6 years (and with the help of foreign car makers like Toyota and Mazda) the quality of american cars has gone up exponentially. I think one of the best things about this country is freedom to choose -- Choices -- and I admit the japanese foreign cars (among others) are highly engineered and reliable. The same is now true of most of the american car companies' products. Some of them may be hideously dog-ugly (coughchryslerdodgecough) but they are reliable and well-assembled. I don't know if they have abetter reliability rating than their competitors, but I understand brand loyalty and don't think there is anything wrong with it. Its the nature of a free trade competitive market. And the american car companies have responded.

Not exactly. What I've observed from various news reports is that drug addiction tends to result in higher crime rates including violent crime since the addicts steal property to support their habit. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of crack, heroin, meth, etc addicts roaming my neighborhood because we abandoned the fight against drugs.

You specifically pointed out the auto bailout. My response to that was that they, not American workers in general, brought this upon themselves because they were unable to build a marketable product. Employees get part of the blame for this too, thanks to the UAW and it's insistence on unreasonable pay, benefits and working conditions.

After several cars made by those companies that turned out to be junk, I'm unwilling to spend my own money to make a $20K or so bet that they have their act together now when I know I can buy other brands and expect good results.

I'm quite willing to buy American made product when it's a quality product. I'm not going to buy junk just because it has an American flag on it.

Other problems don't have the same effect on society. I haven't heard of too many cases where people mugged someone because they couldn't get a Big Mac.

How is this going to significantly increase the size of the government? We have a border patrol now. Let them do their jobs. We also have military now that can assist with protecting the border. I've noted before that Mexico seems to have no problem with enforcing its borders. If Mexico can do it, why can't we?

Well according the news I see/read living in Mexico is damn dangerous and I should get the hell out of here right now. I rather take a nice long walk on my beach instead. Which I do every night and will as soon I get done writing this reply.

Maybe trans fats don't lead people to crime but after years of working law enforcement I can certainly tell you booze sure as hell does. The streets are filled with addicts and drunks now, tax it and use the funds to treat the addict.

Leave people who want to smoke pot the fuck alone (since you're probably wondering no I do not use marijuana and usually only drink on a weekends)

Why zero in on one group and not the other? As long as you're going to tell people how to live and have big government enforce it, enforce it evenly.




A few short posts ago you stated-

So which is it? Are you going to step (aka increase the size of) or will you be able to do it with out stepping up. I fail to see how already over worked border agents are going to find and deport 11 million people.

And you think Mexico's borders are secure? That's a statement that's shows you're either an ill informed or misinformed person.

When one is implying, in a public forum, I am filled with hate and bigotry and knows nothing about me as a person, yes, I get a little angry especially when I am just bringing forth MY beliefs. And not one of them has anything to do with hatred or bigotry... but someone has to imply it does.

It was you quoting ME and saying that so don't you dare play fucking innocent and say... Ooo I was answering someone else. It was my post you quoted and therefore it gives every indication you were replying to me.
Who keeps saying the Tea Party is full of hate and as I showed above you only really use racism... you mention the other prejudices but you use only racism as an example... I'm just saying, if you are going to say I am a defender of bigots because I support the Tea Party... then you are a reverse racist because you support people who listen to them.

You want to label me but I can't dare label you.... BULLSHIT.

But as I have shown above... RACE is what you focus on.


I see. So when it was Bush all the comparisons to Hitler and Naziism and calling him King George from the left were ok.... but now that Obama is president, any comparisons, rightfully or just in one man's opinion, it's wrong and you want to get all pissy and defensive over it.

Bullshit. If I compared Bush to Hitler because I believed there were comparisons to be made. Then I will do the same to Obamas and the Bourbon family of revolutionary France... don't like it? Aw well, ignore it. I won't stop the comparisons.

And if you are defending people who defend and stand with Farrakhan, Wright, the New Black Panther Party, people that hate the rich (yet are some of the richest people in this country, people that hated Bush, people that hated Gingrich, Limbaugh, Fox News, want to regulate and take rights away, want to turn the Constitution into something that allows only their views, and so on... then you must be a hate mongering person also.

Same bullshit analogy.

See, the problem.... everyone is so concerned about hating each other no one wants to work TOGETHER to find common ground and become united... instead we work to stay divided... and you are part of the problem, I am most everyone discussing politics today is.... and that dear, dear Will... is the BIGGEST problem because the old saying is extremely true "United we stand, divided we fall."

And you can defend yourself and Pelosi and Reid and Obama but the truth of the matter is, we are all being driven by HATRED right now and it is destroying this country. This side wants only what they want ... the other side wants only what they want and instead of middle ground and trying to UNDERSTAND the other side... we are told and preached to and have the media and our own politicians and parties telling us to hate the other side.

So don't sit there and act like you are all righteous and the Left is all righteous and only the other side hates. It's fucking bullshit and laughable.

We all know quite a bit about you, Pan. You've posted quite a bit about your personal feelings on myriad issues. One of the things we know about you is you have a temper and you tend to fly off the handle. Another thing is you have trouble seeing straight on the topic of race. You routinely accuse people of calling you a racist when no one has said any such thing.

This thread is about the Tea Party movement as a whole, not about you.
It was me replying to your response to my original statement. My original statement has nothing to do with you, and it was that statement I was referencing. It was never anything else, so stop trying to play the victim again. For the record, you are defending bigots by defending the Tea Party movement as a whole, which includes racists doing racist things. You don't get to support the Tea Party as a whole without doing so. If you don't want to support bigots, you can't support the Tea Party movement.
There's no such thing as reverse racism. There's either racism or not racism. I am not a racist, I don't hate any race, therefore you can't accuse me of racism.
Someone call whine-11 so we can get Pan a wambulance. Your labels don't stick and mine do. You can cry about it all you want, but it will remain true until you do some reflection and realize the truth.
Calling him King George has nothing to do with aristocracy, it has to do with his attitude that he could ignore the will of the majority. And it was hyperbole, I readily admit. What you're doing is simply wrong. The Obamas are not aristocratic in any way, and your characterization of them as such demonstrates you have lost your perspective.
I welcome you to go through my entire post history and find any instance of me even mentioning Farrakhan, Wright, or the NBPP, let alone supporting them. You'll quickly discover no such reference. I don't support them nor do I buy into your false equivalence between them and the Tea Party. The fact is there's no liberal counterpart to the Tea Party you can accuse me of supporting. We don't do that. We don't have astroturf protests because what we're protesting almost never aligns with corporate interests. You, on the other hand, have several times in this thread said you support the Tea Party.
I wasn't told the Tea Party was one of hatred by the mainstream media, I actually went out to them and discovered it myself.

The left isn't perfect. We have a lot of trouble rallying together for causes and ever since Reagan, we've been struggling to form an identity, but we're certainly in better order than anything on the right. Obstructionism in the legislature, racism from the birthers, hatred and ignorance from the Tea Party, partisanship on the bench, anti-intellectualism from the creationists, torture and never ending war from the chickenhawks, and at the center of it all is pure, unadulterated corporate greed. It's quite a mess.

Yeah guys, 'fascist' is the new 'anti-american'. Get with the times.

i love one-dimensional little drive-by posts o so much. no really.

I still think without firm leadership or a proper public platform its too difficult to truly define exactly what they stand for, there are too many people involved with it who carry too many different ideas about what direction the party should take. Its easy to point at toothless rednecks carrying misspelled hate signs to rallies as the face of a movement but three years ago they were carrying the same signs to Joe the Plumber rallies and acting all hot and bothered about McCain/Palin. They want to bitch and will latch on to any movement or party that even slightly tolerates their presence, without leadership to condemn the practice on a national level what can anybody really do about it?

On the flip side I'm not sure if you can point to any of the high profile members as an example either. How many of them are usurping the movement to stay relevant in the press? How many of them will scurry back to the GOP the minute the next Presidential election rolls around? In other words we don't know if somebody like Sarah Palin is either a real representative of the movement or somebody that's going to stick around and help define it when an opportunity arises in the GOP come the next election. Can we look find any numbers to see how many self identified members across the US support any of the people trying to emerge as the face of the party (that's an honest question, have there been any polls that would give us an idea)?

I think we can all read the writing on the wall about the direction this movement is taking if things don't change. However I'm not sure its fair to paint everybody involved right now in the Tea Party with the same broad brush until a platform is outlined behind popular leadership. Without a point of reference subscribed to by the majority of its constituency its all guess work based on personal experiences and whatever we can gather from the press.

Well, the maddening thing about all of it is just that: there is no centre. It's all a reaction to a generic disdain for taxes and spending, and beyond that is a mish-mash of variables that fits under that umbrella.

Bear in mind that the whole feel to the movement is that it is a reaction against something, rather than a movement supporting something. It's a negation that way.

The movement is named after a high-profile piece of American history that involved sabotage and vandalism, an event that was one of several leading up to a revolutionary war.

That's the background context we're dealing with: a reactionary outrage against order based on the perception that people are being treated unfairly and unjustly. Except this time around, it's debatable as to whether that's true.

Regardless, I don't think the Tea Partiers of today can declare they're being taxed without representation. I think they're just tired of the way the American Dream is crumbling before their very eyes. The world's last remaining superpower is going broke, and this is what it sounds like.

I'm not really sure if the name is supposed to be that specific though BG, it might very well be because it sounded "patriotic" while vaguely referencing a coming revolution from a pissed off population. But that's just a guess.

Anyway I think being tired of watching the American dream crumble or we're being treated unfairly is why its so hard to pinpoint them with any real accuracy. There are so many theories on why things are going wrong and why from "minorities and immigrants are messing everything up" to "I'm being taxed to death and can't afford it" to "social programs are too costly" to what the fuck ever. But its hard to say if Mr taxed to death is on the same page as Mr illegal immigrants need to die.

I don't know, again just kind of thinking out loud.

Yeah, I'm just spouting thoughts at the moment, myself.

When it comes to "tea party," I'm assuming they're not referencing afternoon tea on the terrace, or perhaps at Mildred's. They took the name knowingly, so now it's stuck. I didn't know they were trying to be non-specific about it.

Thats funny, I guess you never know. Perhaps the whole movement is an afternoon tea party gone VERY wrong. :D

No I know what mean and the name does carry with it a certain image giving us clues to whats goin' down. The tea party does get thrown around a lot here by groups needing an identity against the powers that be and its meaning tends to get watered down to the point of sometimes just being a pointless slogan that sounds neat. Along the lines of "remember the Alamo" and slapping the rebel flag on a truck bumper the person or group using it may have no idea the real historical connotation behind it, again I have no idea why they choose it, just making conversation.

it's shocking to find tea partiers behind protests around the country against the building of mosques, isn't it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us...mc=rss&src=igw

why you'd almost think there's something to all the accusations that the tea party is rife with xenophobes and racists.

and if you look at the front national in france, they use similar fears of being "invaded by mosques" to mobilize their neo-fascist consituency.

must be just a coincidence.

It all sounds so medieval.

I mean that literally.

Such xenophobia is astounding, and the irony of it is painful to bear.

yeah, see i don't really get all the harumph harumph we are not racists "outrage" from folk sympathetic to the tea party above. it is self-evident that the movement is open to the whole spectrum of rightwing-to-ultra rightwing groups and people and that anyone--at all--was welcome by the non-center when they were useful as bodies for tea party astroturf events. astroturf because there's also little doubt that the sweetheart coverage provided the ultra-right by those fine impresarios of reaction at fox news played a big role in creating the tea party.

anyway, it seems to me that folk simply want to have it both ways: when the mirror is held up to some nebulous "populist outrage" and the cameras are assumed not to be rolling, any noxious sloganeering is fine. but once folk who aren't interested in being part of the party start looking, so once focus changes to what these people are doing and what they say and what they might stand for or want based on that....then it's all WHADDYA MEAN?

as for the xenophobia--yeah. it's appalling. but it's the kind of mideval ignorance that gives the tea party traction.

The tea party is an organization with open membership like just about any other political group. So you get a few crazies from time to time.

Your claim that the tea party is racist, bigoted, or whatever makes no more sense than my claiming that the pro gay rights people are violent based on the couple links I posted earlier about some lunatics in the anti-proposition 8 group making death threats.

Denounce the lunatics for what they are but don't label the entire group because of a few wackos.

my claim is that there is an underlying ideological commonality that links the tea party together. that commonality is reactive. it deploys as xenophobia in some contexts racism in others, paranoia in most. it leans on a very basic feature of conservative political language of the past 20 years or so which is the opposition between the "real american" and the Other.

and this is not a matter of "a few crazies"---its a function of the central statements that hold contemporary conservatism together. the "we" is always under assault, be it from a state that wants to redistribute wealth to the evil muslims who want to build mosques so they have a community center and space for worship. your statements, dogzilla, are consistently embedded in **exactly** this language---your Problem with taxes your Problem with "illegals"... look up poujadisme. it could be a photograph.

so i can understand why you'd want to minimize what i'm saying and chock it up to a bunch of "crazies"---but you can't do it unless you want to characterize yourself among the crazies or want to say that the tea party is some mystical social movement every statement about which is wrong, that it involves an immediate connection between the Movement and the People. but that's also a, um, problematic
idea in the history of the far right. think popular theories of the relation between the state and the volk in 30s germany. do some research. i can help if you like.


what i've learned from threads like this is that far right people have a much bigger problem with being told their ideological position is neo-fascist than they have with the reasons one might say that about them.

go figure. neo-fascism is ok so long as you don't say what it is.

I can't wait until some charismatic ideologue comes along and harnesses the aimless fear of these folks. Should be a good time.

Palin 2012?

Why not? The Democrats had Obama as a clueless ideologue in 2008.

Seriously, I think we can do better than that. I'm looking forward to a bunch of Democrats getting the boot in this fall's election (Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Waters, wish Dodd had the guts to stick around) and Obama being even more of a lame duck until 2012.

I really don't know why I contribute here anymore.

willravel - I'm really disappointed you took this thread in this direction.

this is a Tea Party endorsed candidate for NY Governor

you simply can't say that the xenophobes are the lunatic fringe when the candidates are the xenophobes

And there's the crux, Derwood. There are Tea Party members who support the party purely on the basis of the party's stance on fiscal issues. But the candidates' agenda is different--to promote their reactionary social policy. You can't get one without the other. A vote for a Tea Party member IS a vote for reactionary social policy, whether you have any interest in social policy or not.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2lwm2as.png

sorry, couldn't resist

While you're posting whackjob quotes, don't forget that it was FDR that locked up thousands of Japanese-Americans.

Don't forget that it was liberal groups like the Weathermen that committed acts of terrorism in the US.

So much for tolerance of others. I'm sure we can go on endlessly with references to liberals and conservatives that promote intolerance and bigotry. I thought this group was better than that.

I don't think you'll find any liberals here who agree with FDR's internment camps, or radical terrorist groups. You're deflecting.

nor will you find any liberal candidates running on a platform of terrorism or internment

Pelosi won't lose, Reid is currently ahead by 20 points, and Rangel's spot won't go to a Republican.

God I hate this situation where I keep having to point out that I'm a conservative.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Enough is enough. This thread is an embarrassment between the threadjacks, personal attacks and half-assed jokes that fell flat. If you think I might be talking about you, let me remove any doubt - I am. And you're the problem here. From this post on, if you do not discuss the topic AS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL POST, you'll earn points. No warning, no discussion. All staff are providing their personal opinions and are not using their staff positions to lend weight to those opinons or to detract from an opposing view. If you think that is the case from here on out, notify me personally. I think that everyone on both ends of the spectrum knows that I care less about opinions than behavior. Either have a respectful discussion or be prepared to take a vacation from TFP. Err on the side of polite. If you can't do that, then hit your back button. If you can't do THAT, we'll discuss it when you get back.

Nevermind

Okay, calmed down and speaking dispassionately directly to the OP.
When you talk to people at the events themselves, they do tend to stick to fiscal concerns and I'd say the majority of homemade signs have to deal with the size of the Federal government, bailouts and taxes, but the social issues are there. When I was at the first protest in April of 2009 in Cesar Chavez Park, I took note there were signs specifically referencing life beginning at conception. I only remember noticing them because they didn't fit with, at the time, my understanding of the movement as libertarian (not that all libertarians are pro-choice, but all of the libertarians I know are and I know the official stance of the Libertarian party is abortion doesn't concern the state regardless of when life begins). Still, there were only a few signs. No one asked them to leave, but the protest wasn't a pro-life protest. I've seen those before and there's no mistaking them.

It wasn't until a counter-protest arrived that the social stances started becoming clear. San Jose has very active and vocal amnesty groups that routinely protest all over in support of our large undocumented immigrant population. When the amnesty protesters showed up at the Tea Party protest, the discussion quickly moved away from fiscal policy and moved to immigration. The Tea Party protesters all came down on the side against amnesty, obviously, but the general stance I could discern from the people shouting was that they want to close and significantly militarize the border, including the fence people often talk about, they want English to be the national language, they believe illegal immigrants are doing significant damage to the healthcare system and are a burden on our tax system (which I suppose is a combination of fiscal and social issues), they were against sanctuary cities, and of course the accusation that illegal immigrants take jobs away from American citizens. This was not just a few loud people, but the vast majority of the Tea Party protesters as well as the speaker, a host from a San Francisco conservative talk radio station.

After the amnesty protest moved away, people like myself who were not there to be a part of the Tea Party, but were just passing by or showed up to see what was going on started having discussions with the protesters. This is where the issues of abortion, homosexuality, unions, guns, etc. all came up.

The thing is, not all Tea Parties are on the same page as far as social issues.

Tea Party Patriots:
Source
This is 100% fiscal.

Tea Party Nation:
Source
This features some social issues, including free speech, the right to bear arms, and immigration, per my experience.

Finally, Tea Party.org:
Source
Social issues include immigration, gun ownership, English as a national language, and 'traditional family values', which I take to mean marriage between a man and a woman though I could be wrong.

So, depending on which Tea Party you ask, there are social issues on the table. That matches my personal experience.

I hope this post has helped to put things back on track.

personally, i think the tea party is mostly about this split inside the conservative movement:

American Crossroads, Karl Rove-Backed GOP Group, Predicts Stronger Fundraising After Disappointing Numbers

which i link to only because it's recent and short. there's quite a bit of information out there about these people and their nice new political gated community, american crossroads.

the tea party is a show of power.

during the popular front in france (1936) the communist party was able to move very quickly from being a small sectarian group to a mass political party because they were able to make a parallel show of force. at the renault factory at billancourt, they turned a sit-down strike on and off at will--they became a player because they forced their way in the door. to get there, they stepped all over alot of militants to the left of the pcf--and if you ever have occasion to read histories of the popular front, you'll get an introduction.

i think the same thing is going to happen to the tea partiers.

right now, it's more a matter of being alot of rightwing bodies that can be directed to turn out for this or that purposes at more or less this or that time. it matters much less why people turn out than it does that they turn out. given the sweetheart coverage the tea party still gets on faux news and other rightwing outlets, the more they turn out the more legit they look, the more they can become what they look like on tv.

so its an appearance of numbers game the idea of which is to become a numbers game.


rove's vile new conservative organization is not a political party, which means that they're not bound by the already quite weak campaign finance laws. so they also have another interest in not looking quite like a conventional political organization.
and these people have attracted alot of big money.
alot of the deep pockets who were funding the ultra-right before seem to think, from what i've read, that the republican party is in trouble because of the whole actual record of conservative power/bush administration thingy.

and if you look into what rove et al stand for, it's basically a corporate oligarchy. they have no use for democracy. they are what i've been saying the tea party is.

in their dreamiest scenario, i would expect they'd like to see themselves making enough gains alongside the republicans in the mid-terms to paralyze the obama administration altogether. i think they'd rather see a depression, a total collapse of the american economy, than allow obama's administration to govern effectively. because they like power that much.

i think the tea partiers are chumps. usefully incoherent footsoldiers the function of which is to help a very well-funded very right-wing very not-populist conservatism appear to be otherwise.

but we'll see.

I think one thing to keep in mind when it comes to how the party defines itself (both socially and fiscally) is that, assuming they gain traction, they're still a very young party trying to figure out its own role in the world. I would imagine over the next few elections you'll see all sorts of policy swings as the water tries to find its own level. In the meantime people are coming out of the wood work for a number of reasons hoping the tea party is the alternative choice they're looking for and in turn assigning their own values and beliefs to what they think the tea party is or should be. One person is all about pro life and taking down illegal immigrants while another is concerned about making a living while having to pay such high taxes, are both are feeling let down by the GOP? I would think eventually their stance on social issues will slowly begin to reflect the average beliefs of the majority of supporters. Some independent polls of Tea Party supporters might go a long way in understanding what the evolution of their social stances will be as they settle in.

It reminds me a bit of the excitement about Ralph Nader in 2000, of course we were dealing with a much more organized party, but it amazed me how many disenfranchised democrats (and even republicans) latched on to the Green Party and just assumed it stood for whatever they happened to believe in almost like an alternative, generic left wing. Sometimes people just want something different I guess.

Anyway pardon my random thoughts, I've been learning a lot about the tea party in this thread (great post above Will) and just opining publicly along the way for the sake of discussion.

And to some degree that is the problem. It's the Becks, Levines, and Hannitys that actually chase people away and work to make social policy in the Tea Party.

There truly is nothing wrong with the core beliefs:

One can't say it is pro business due to the fact that "Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable." would mean bringing jobs back and increasing wages and benefits thus lowering the upper tier management income levels.

Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. This also affects the rich and upper echelons who got bailout and stimulus monies. Who were able to lower their tax debts 100,000's of dollars (just watch tv and see the commercials of the people), money they legitimately owed the government but obviously have not put back into the economy. Meanwhile, the people that owe a couple grand and live paycheck to paycheck are forced to pay plus interest.

The only thing as an old school liberal I have problems with and this is where the Hannity's Beck's and Levine's have destroyed the movement for me.. is "Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged."

Hannity and company, use this to hand pick who they will give air time to and support. That's all well and good, but traditional family values vary widely depending on religion, culture, beliefs, etc. My beliefs are I don't care if it is same sex or hetero parents, love and caring for the children and having them grow up as well adapted, productive members in society is all that matters and all that should. That in my belief comes from parents loving, interest and mentoring. The Tea Party wants to cut unnecessary spending and an intrusive government but then they allow talking heads "representing" them to use this to push forth their own policies which will lead to lawsuits, discriminations and more governmental regulations.

This one issue "core belief" is being so warped, IMHO, that it conflicts with a couple others.

I have long maintained that in this one issue it should be left to states, counties, townships/cities etc to decide what they want and the federal government by US Constitution have no right to dictate differently. Prop 8 is a good example... it's a state issue, the people voted federal court and our tax money have no business overturning or upholding a state issue. Period. If you like/dislike prop 8 work the state courts, get it back on the ballot, whatever... it is no not never a federal issue. Yet, for their own reasons both sides want to make it national.

You cannot nationally EVER legislate morals. it doesn't work and the framers of the Constitution knew this. You can't go to a heavy Catholic area and demand an abortion clinic... it's pushing your beliefs on someone else. Someone wants an abortion have them take a trip to where it is legal. If there is a portion of our country called "the Bible Belt" and they do not want to wish to have legalized same sex marriage and the majority vote that way, it's not for anyone in the federal government to go in and force same sex marriages. Get married in Mass, move to Ala. and live together it'll still work. Maybe have laws where the federal government forces businesses and insurance companies to recognize the union but don't "FORCE" a community to make it legal.

There in lies the biggest divider, everyone wants what they want and they want to demand everyone else no matter what state they are in must recognize and bow down to those wishes... and it is impossible to do without causing hatred, resentment and anger. You have to respect the voters, the communities and work on educating people not dictating to people.

But instead, we have both sides name calling, spewing hate and so ignorant in their own beliefs that they refuse to recognize there are other views and each has the same worth, to the person who has that view. When there can be common ground and respect had. Like I said forcing an abortion clinic in a heavily Catholic/Christian area is just forcing your will upon a group of people. Common sense dictates, if you want to go 3 counties over or to another state and have the abortion... cool. You're gay, you want to marry the community doesn't want to allow gay marriages to be performed , go to one that does and be done with it.

It's like dry counties, same principle. Every dry county, I know of, you can buy alcohol in another county and bring it into your home.

Anyway, that is how I see it. It's not the Tea Party is filled with hate. It's filled with the same talking heads the other 2 parties are preaching the same thing. That is, "fear". Fear of the people, the individual communities and the states opposing what values they want to shove down everyone else's throats.

You get rid of dictating morals nationally and give those rights back to the people, I think you'll see a huge change in this country. I believe it will be more accepting of others and we'll see more compromise in issues such as fiscal responsibilities, foreign policy, worker's rights, and so on.

The people I personally KNOW in the Tea Party feel very similar to the way I do, but they also know that without some national media and voice hence, Hannity/Beck/Levine... it won't grow. They are willing to make some sacrifice (which I think is too big of one) to have that national media platform.

I can almost guarantee the Tea Party candidates that are close to saying what I just did will have far better showings in their elections than most of the hand picked Hannity/Beck/Levine hand picked candidates.

the problem with referendums pan, is that the public can't vote away civil rights. that's what takes the issue beyond the states.

/threadjack

and that a state can't pass a law that is against the US Constitution

But we're not talking civil rights. We're not saying gay marriage won't be recognized, just not performed in some areas. Not saying abortion is illegal everywhere, just in some places, we're not saying anyone can be denied equal rights under the law... just why force an area to have an abortion clinic? Why force a bible belt state to perform gay marriage?

The only reason is to put forth someone's power over another... that's where the anger and hatred and no compromises begin.

It's not rocket science. Gay men and women have lived in Bible Belt states probably as long as they have been states and before. They want to get married go to Mass. get married the state recognizes it, the fed government protects it... but you are not shoving it in people's faces. Whereas, you demand that Alabama makes it legal to perform the marriage and give out the certificates and you FORCE the will of probably less than a .5% of the state's population (that may want to participate in a gay marriage) on the rest of the people, you are going to get hatred.

No one wants to have views forced upon them. It's the exact same thing as if all of a sudden Roe V Wade was overturned and abortion was made illegal everywhere. Some communities would be happy, some extremely hostile. Same with Homosexual marriages as we are seeing, some communities extremely happy some extremely pissed off and saying Hell no.

To say "referendums don't work." I believe is wrong. I think when you allow communities and states to determine MORAL laws that it is easier to keep the union whole and people willing to compromise.

I force my views on you and demand you accept them, you will be pissed and want to punch me in my nose and that dear friend is what the Federal government has been doing to the people. And they are tired of it.

---------- Post added at 04:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 AM ----------

And if Alabama passes a law stating no legal abortions in cities with a population under 100,000 how is that unconstitutional? You're not denying anyone the right to have an abortion, just they can only have it in certain areas of that state.

How is saying the state will recognize gay marriages performed in other states but shall not issue any marriage licenses for such unions, unconstitutional? You're not denying them equal protection under the law, you are not saying that the marriage if performed in another state is void, just this state does not wish to issue licenses for it. You are not saying "gay marriage is illegal", you are not saying gays will go to jail, cannot get a job, do not have any rights... you are simply saying the marriage being originated in that state is not permitted.

But to force the will of an extreme minority upon a majority that does not want it, is asking for problems. It leads to hatreds, resentments and prejudices more so than eliminating them.

It's like say you and 4 other people go into a bar and demand that the other 95 cannot drink because it violates your right to enjoy the evening without having to put up with alcohol and the "problems" it MAY create for you. You don't want to drink, go down the road to Starbuck's don't demand that 95 other people cannot drink. You're not even giving them a say in the matter. YOU ARE DICTATING YOUR WILL OVER OTHERS.

I love how people say, the minority have to be protected from the majority and it is true but in the end, what is the difference between >5% of a population dictating to the rest their will? There is no difference whatsoever. Both lead to hatred. Whereas, letting communities decide their own fates, allows for compromises that both sides can ultimately live with

What's better having gay marriage recognized everywhere but only performed in some areas, no gay marriages allowed at all or forcing areas to perform gay marriages through lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions upon millions and leading to hatred, prejudices and anger?

San Francisco let's say (and I think they did vote for something like this if memory serves) that no guns can be sold in their city limits. No one says you can't own a gun, carry a gun however the state allows, just that you cannot buy one in city limits. So what's the problem? One group wants to dictate to the majority that their "right" to buy a gun is being withheld. It isn't. You could still but one in Oakland and other areas and carry it to your home with no problems. You just cannot buy it in the city. That's not unconstitutional, that's not infringing on anyone's rights. And the Left fights it like that. The Right says... infringement. The Right is wrong the Left is right.... but we spend MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and try to load supreme court justices and politicians to legislate a moral decision that infringes no one's rights.

The exact same could be said for abortion, gay marriage and so on.

It's all about compromise, education and respect of each other. We work for that instead of against it, we can focus on the matters that truly affect our lives. The deficit, education, rebuilding a tax base and the infrastructure and so on.

But both sides want to say that won't work because they view it as being a loss of power for them.

Pan, as far as I can tell, the constitution doesn't provide for the abridgement of rights anywhere. So if a particular behavior or is constitutionally protected, it's protected everywhere. In my opinion geographical exceptions are a horrible idea.

if the tea partiers were to be consistent they'd have a similar attitude about gun control.
but they don't.

so the fact is that you, pan, are drawn to the tea party in part because you have a Problem with gay marriage.
well, i have a Problem with localities not having the prerogative to regulate gun ownership as they see fit.

and the issue of gay marriage is a matter of equal protection under the law. it's about not allowing the far right to use the language of "morality" to justify discrimination. back in the day, your predecessors on the far right in the southeast justified other forms of discrimination on similar grounds.


the bailout package is a meme the tea party is using to distance itself from the mainline republican party. its the wedge that allows them to argue on economic policy grounds that the republicans aren't conservative enough. i think the bailout package was classically american conservative. talk populist but save the financial sector. and the military contractors.


the positions about "government intrusion" in the platform you copy above make no sense. what they're about is the dismantling of the redistributive state. in a severe economic situation, pulling back the state will be a disaster.

and there'd be more funds and programs for job creation if the republicans weren't blocking them all. so all this stuff about domestic jobs from the right is bullshit. you can't have it both ways: you either support job creation or you don't. you don't get to only support it if it happens when the right is in power.

a stronger military? the united states already spends more on military procurements etc. than the next 5 or so nation-states on the list combined. increasing military spending is the LAST thing the us needs. the tea party likes the repressive state.

"special interests" eliminated? how is the military and/or the military-industrial complex not a collection of "special interests"? why you'd almost think that the tea party is really about throwing up a smoke screen to prevent the dismantling of the national security state.

because the tea party people have no way to speak coherently about the reorganization of capitalism---so they cannot explain why their jobs are gone---their handlers turn them on the Others--the "ILLEGALS" and non-english speakers. and with this we go back to all the "real american" nonsense outlined earlier.

yeah, there is absolutely nothing on that list that i think even coherent in 2010 much less desirable.

i think the tea party is dangerous. i go back and forth about its ambitions, though. i think the organization backbone is what i outlined above. whether they're after the republican party or trying to make a third reactionary way, we'll have to see.

If it is deemed that gay marriage is a human/civil right, then it isn't simply forcing the will of 1% of the population onto others; it's enforcing the same rights already afforded the rest of the population. That's how rights work.

Geographic exceptions are no better than class, race, or gender exceptions. Rights are rights. Hatred be damned.

Putting the question of moral law to referendums is a dangerous idea. Go ahead and ask the 100% population directly whether 1% of the population deserves something and you're going to get somewhat predictable results. And if the question is a question of human/civil rights, then a referendum is not the way to go. If they had put universal suffrage to a referendum (read: to men), then women would likely have never been able to vote.

Referendums only work on questions that affect/reflect the population relatively equally. You don't go to the majority to determine the outcome of minorities.

EDIT:

My thoughts on the core beliefs:

Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. [Getting rid of them will eliminate a worker pool of low-wage earners and a sizable chunk of the tax base. The net effect would be upward pressure on inflation (average wages for low-paying jobs).]

Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable. [With average wages increasing after deporting undocumented workers, domestic job creation may be further hindered. Incomes will fall.]

Stronger Military Is Essential. [Increases in military spending will only encourage further wastage and bloating. The U.S. needs to figure out the difference between "defense spending" and "meddling spending." It should consider cutting the budget in half.]

Special Interests Eliminated. [Does this include the NRA and the meat & dairy industry lobbies?]

Gun Ownership Is Sacred. [Silly wording. Nothing is sacred. Not sure what is implied here.]

Government Must Be Downsized. [Without specifics, this is meaningless. Downsized where? Let's start with the military.]

National Budget Must Be Balanced. [Generally this should be the case, but it isn't always practical, especially in 2008. Economic realities are a bitch, especially when you look at factors beyond your control as a nation.]

Deficit Spending Will End. [Generally desirable, see above re: national budget and military spending.]

Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. [I'm no lawyer, but I think this is debatable.]

Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must. [Americans are already paying low taxes. And didn't Obama lower taxes for most Americans already? Lowering taxes during a period of deficit spending and high debt is generally poor money management.]

Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory. [I'm not sure where businesses are sitting right now, but my perception is that U.S. businesses aren't overtaxed.]

Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. [Is this not the case? The Internet is a wonderful thing.]

Intrusive Government Stopped. [Can we remove subsidies to the meat and dairy industry? The barring of gay marriage and abortion?]

English As Core Language Is Required. [The U.S. should have at least two official languages: English and Spanish. It would make a lot of sense if you actually took a look at geography and demographics.]

Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged. [Gays marginalized. Women removed from the workforce. Anti-abortion. Religious compass. Abstinence over sex education. Against pre-marital sex and cohabitation/common law. I don't think this reflects enough of the population. It's going to marginalize too many people. But I don't get it. Does the Tea Party want the government to encourage this, or is this something they encourage themselves? Either way, both the government and the Tea Party should avoid being so intrusive on families despite their values and makeup.]

pan, I don't even know where to start. I found your entire post disgusting

The more I read this list and think about it the more it just comes across as vague and confusing, a net to reel in anybody who is right of center.

I don't have time to go through this list with a fine tooth comb, some of it I agree with in theory, some of its ridiculous (in my opinion) but at this point it reads more like a right wing recruitment list then anything else. As though they are just trying to get their fingers in as many right wing pies as possible. If I'm looking for a right wing candidate and was presented with that list I'd be asking why I should throw away my vote on the Tea Party instead of supporting the Republican candidate who would have a better chance of winning and would support most if not all of whats listed above.

I'd be interested in hearing how they plan to set themselves apart from the GOP in any substantial way. The social issues they seem to be interested in are really no different then Republican stance and perhaps the answer to the OP is that they have a generic right wing stance on social issue and just leave it at that. The fiscal conservatives involved don't seem all that interested in social issues and are leaving them up to those who are. Certainly weather or not they will continue down the same road it would be hard to fathom them going in the other direction and taking a left wing (or even center) stance on ANYTHING without alienating those they've already recruited. It may be guess work, for the time being I just don't see them saying or doing anything at a national level that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Time will tell I suppose but if it doesn't change I don't see how they could survive as anything more then a political fad without defining themselves as a real alternative.

Where am I saying it isn't protected? Please, show me how you get I am saying people somehow someway are having civil rights infringed upon. Because I went to great lengths to show compromise can be had, without the infringement of anyones rights.

Where did I say gay marriage wasn't protected, where? I said a state or a community should have the right to decide if they want to issue the license for it. I stated the state would recognize and protect their rights as a married couple, but the state doesn't have to issue the license. How is that hatred? How is that anything except compromise.

So, the Second Amendment allows me the right to bear arms. I want to carry 2 M-16's, 5 glock 9's and a grenade launcher in downtown San Francisco. I, constitutionally have that right. I'm not hurting anyone and if I am the excuse for inciting anything, not my fault. See I have the right to bear arms, people trying to stop me or showing fear and what not, well then they have the problem. Not me.

So Tea Party social issues...

Sorry for answering a question you posed to someone else, but I think the answer is pretty simple: One shouldn't have to leave Alabama and go to Mass. to partake in something that is constitutionally protected.

What if it's someone who, for whatever reason, can't go out of state...to do said thing that is constitutionally protected?

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

It does say "Traditional family values encouraged" on the list....

But it also says something about intrusive governments. It's all very confusing.

saying a gay couple can marry in town A but NOT in town B is the very definition of infringing upon someone's civil rights. They have every right (under Equal Protection) to marry in town B if they choose, regardless of what that town's majority wants

regardless, a party that claims to want the smallest government possible shouldn't be championing ANY social issues where the government is the arbiter of the issue

Compromise and respect are pretty disgusting when you want only your will enforced.

I see no compromise or respect in NOT allowing people to do something that you are allowed to do.

NONE

A round of applause to pan for his posts here...from me anyway. The most reasoned, logical, and pragmatic in this entire thread by far.

And where did I say someone was not "allowed"? WHERE? See you want no compromise because YOU want to thrust and impose your will onto others. And make claims and act all self righteous but you are as bull headed and small minded as the people who say "NO, Gay marriage, PERIOD."

So because neither side wants to compromise, both sides want to impose their will, you are no different than the people you say you hate and disgust you. You are one in the same, you just justify it with FALSE justifications so you can sleep at night and feed your ego... they do the same thing on the other side.

People do understand that allowing gay marriage is different from mandating gay marriage, right?

That if a state allows gay marriage it doesn't force it on anyone, right?

I've yet to see an explanation over how allowing gay marriage is an imposition one's will over anyone.

Oh, and people understand that bans on gay marriage not only prevent that state to issue licenses, but also from recognizing those licenses from other states, right?

No saying they can't marry there BUT if they marry elsewhere their rights are still protected, the union is still recognized.

It's COMPROMISE, finding middle ground.

See but people must unfortunately rely on government as the arbiter of an issue and hence Right-Left and intrusive government because YOU and those opposite you refuse compromise, refuse to acknowledge that THE PEOPLE should have a voice in how they want their community to be. You both only want to dictate your will upon others.

And because of that our country is falling apart.

Should we compromise on the right to bear arms? Free speech? The freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? What else?

If gay marriage is deemed a right protected under the United States Constitution, Pan, tell me why the hell there should be compromises?

You would allow the public to hold sway over the constitutional rights of minority groups?

Let me be clear, Pan, upholding constitutionally protected rights is not "thrusting and imposing one's will onto others"; it's upholding a universal claim that everyone is entitled to.

Derwood in post 167 exactly what is your point?

Since all you did was quote and make not comments... just a nice little hit and run, huh?

I won't make any assumptions as to what point you are trying to make. I'll let you put forth your point and then I'll answer.

K? k.... smiles, smiles......

but as soon as you say "if you want to do X, you have to travel to Y to do it", you're limiting rights.

this isn't tough to understand

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------


you asked where you said something so I quoted you saying it

I see so when a community says we don't want guns SOLD here, not infringing on your right to have them, just no buying them here. That community should be forced to sell them anyway?

Now, I am sure if I do research and maybe DK could even give me a clue where to look. When San Fran had something similar and it was debated here... many of those people saying, "you can't do the pick and choose on who can get their marriage licensed" were in support of allowing a pick and choose on where you can buy a gun.

So, in layman's terms according to past and present what you appear to be saying is, "The majority said you can't buy a gun in this city so you can't buy a gun, even tho you have a right to. On the other hand, you have to allow gay marriages to be licensed in your state, fuck the majority."

On the one, you can own a gun, just not buy it in that community. I don't see an issue. NO rights are infringed.

On the other, it's saying, the state/community will not originate or license a marriage, BUT if they are married oustide, the state will protect their rights as a legally married couple."

Exact same thing... but yet you will argue the exact opposite depending on how YOU feel about the issue.

Like I said, perfect example dry counties. You can imbibe, you can own alcohol, the county isn't going to arrest or fine you. You just can't buy in that county. Not one right is infringed upon.

The rest of what you say is extremist bullshit and you know it. Cruel and unusual punishment...lol... just ask those in favor and opposed to capital punishment. Compromises were made there and for the most part except for extremists... it's really not much of an election hot point anymore is it?

Actually, Pan, it would be more akin to saying that black men can't buy guns, but white folks can. Or that women can't buy alcohol, they must send their husbands in. Because, you know, who wants a decaying society where the black men are armed with guns and wives are getting drunk? Don't you know the dangers of each?

But, hey, you can go to Mass. to do such things. They're all liberal-like up there.

pan:

unless you're arguing is that you see some constitutional right to be homophobic that's infringed by allowing people who happen to be gay to marry, you haven't anything like a coherent argument.

So having a right to sell guns is akin to forcing them to sell guns?

I've yet to see any of the forcing and imposing of one's will that you seem to be talking about.

Unless, like RB said, you see a right to be a homophobe and that an action that doesn't involve anyone other than those married violates their right to be homophobic.

That's exactly what it sounds like.

Oh, you mean like in a dry county where you have to go to a different county to buy alcohol? Or in some areas where they refuse to sell guns and your have to go somewhere else to buy a gun.

They don't limit you having it, they just don't let you purchase the product there.

How is having someone go somewhere to get what they need and then come back and the product is legal you just had to go elsewhere to purchase it, limiting your rights in anyway?


Well, the second "quote" did nothing but send me to the thread starting it didn't lead me to whatever the point you were trying to make.

The whole crux of the matter is simple... you don't want compromise no matter what, you don't care to educate, and you have no respect for anyone's opposing views. You just want to thrust your will onto others.

The Right and the Left are one in the same. Meanwhile, all this energy spent on hatred and bullshit does nothing to solve the deficit, a failing infrastructure, a shrinking middle class, a war, and so on. All it does do is drive this country apart further, makes people choose sides and dig in, and so on. Not one true positive issue that will help this country is solved.

false equivalancies are false

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

I must say that I haven't before heard of anyone making such a farce of constitutionally protected rights.

The compromises you are asking for Pan are not compromises based on fair deliberation. This is not as simple as comparing to situations where no one can do something in a geographic area. This is not like special gun laws in certain cities, where no one can buy guns, or like areas with prohibition where no one can buy booze. This isn't even like the compromises you referred to with cruel and unusual punishment and capital punishment. It's not like it has been deemed okay to execute men of colour but not okay to execute white men or anything.

This is a "compromise" based on barring a minority group from their rights afforded them in the Constitution while permitting those not like them the very same rights.

This argument makes a complete farce of the idea of a constitution.

not to mention that the Tea Party shouldn't have any opinion on gay marriage, since they want government staying out of our lives

I think that's been the undercurrent this whole time (at least in my mind).

You can't decry intrusive government while in the same breath call for the banning or the upholding of laws against abortion and gay marriage without sounding like a hypocrite.

You can't build your whole platform around the Constitution and only abide by it when it suits your values without looking like a hypocrite.

Maybe the Tea Party should decide on a leadership structure, and fast. They need to keep their story straight.

Or increase military and border patrol, cut taxes and reduce the deficit... all at the same time. It all BS logic. Demanding lower taxes when they're at the lowest % in over 50 years and demanding the deficit be lowered is not very logical. But most of the people making these demands are the very same folks that we're 100% for going to war and lowering taxes at the same time. It's like their logic comes from a Hollywood movie script. Magical thinking really isn't very magical.

I was going to say the same thing on the previous page when responding the list of Tea Party issues. If you don't want the govt intruding on our daily lives then you can't look to them to mandate marriage, language and who you can and can't hire. Its hypocritical.

Its a buzz phrase designed to get small govt conservatives on board, which is why I suspect its more a recruitment tool then a set in stone platform.

Whatever... keep saying one side is full of hate and uncompromising when I just showed that your side is just as bad.

Like I said, the Tea Party members I know (and I know quite a few) are more willing to compromise on social issues and find ways to make them work so that the focus can stay on the real issues, unemployment, the deficit, corruption etc.

But keep hate alive.... you hate the Right for wanting to dictate to you their beliefs ... the right hates you for the same reason and both sides would rather destroy everything in this country than to compromise, eductae and treat the other side with respect.

There is no arguing with you, not because you are right... but solely because you refuse to respect, listen or try to find common ground.

I've said it before and I will say it again, that as the "common enemy" leaves this forum and they are... you all will eventually feast upon one another, because all that hatred and anger you have (that you deny having but accuse everyone who opposes you of having) has to be fed.

And some of you, may eventually see you have some here, (you call leaders and follow as great thinkers) as nothing more than what they are, hatemongers who truly would rather destroy this country than watch it heal...

You will have to forgive me if I refuse to respect, listen to, and find common ground with hypocrisy. I don't hate the right who are guilty of it, but I will say that a lot of their hypocrisy is based on their own hatred and fear. The opposition to gay marriage and abortion comes from those who would never participate in such things. So why the opposition? It's not like allowing gay marriages and abortions will lead to the right's children turning gay, getting married, and aborting all their little gay babies. What they are doing is foisting their morality on others.

Even if I look for the positives, I run into the problem Tully points out: you can't easily cut taxes at the same time as reducing debt or managing a deficit. It doesn't take much business sense to get that. I can only assume that those who do get it are looking at major spending cuts (but not to the military, surprisingly). So what we get there is a bunch of libertarians who want to pay less tax after gutting, if not eviscerating, social programs.

You see, that's a position I can respect though I don't agree with it. I find libertarians to be selfish individualists for the most part, but at least what they say makes sense.

ah, the "but you do it too" rebuttal. cunning

of course, you've already littered your posts with false equivalancies, so I can't really take your stance very seriously

I would love to hear what is a fair compromise between bigotry and individual rights.

This whole thing where impinging one's right to be a bigot is a more serious offense than impinging on one's right to choose who they want to marry is ridiculous.

Saying I'm willing to compromise as long as I get my way isn't really compromising.

My sincere honest belief on the current state of US politics is basically the Dems couldn't predict 5 o'clock at 4:30 and GOP could convince a bunch of people at 4:30 that 5 o'clock will never happen. I've read all I can stand to read about the Tea Party folks and their ideas. I have little doubt that, fiscally, if they were to have their way we'd really be screwed. Of course they are a pretty vast group, with a wide range of opinions. Only constant I see is a dislike for anything they perceive as socialism. So it's kind of hard to tell what exactly they want. But for the last 40-50 years sound bites and slogans get people elected. Well that and telling people what they want to hear. Sound bite, slogans and pandering will not dig the US out of the hole it's dug it's self into, I just hope some solutions do make it through the sausage machine before we end up looking like the USSR when it fell.

well here we are again, sports fans.
in today's session of everyone's favorite tfsport, what is the score?


those hate-filled egomaniacs who want to destroy america at some point either before or after their mad-dog hatred prompts them to eat themselves but whom even if they dont eat themselves in some hatred driven frenzy of hateful hating full of hate refuse to compromise with the Forces of Righteousness (see below) and who have in common support for the right of people who happen to be gay to marry

zero. nada. bubkes.

and pan 6467 who does nothing but give and give and give and watches as these hatefilled egomaniacs destroy america

everything. but in tragic circumstances.

and there we have it sports fans.
another thrilling contest between the forces of good and eeeevil.

see you next time we play exactly the same game.

And are you not guilty of "Foisting your morality on others" just wrapping it under different wrapping and claiming "infringement of rights" but you are in fact infringing others rights and doing the exact foisting" You just find a bullshit justification for it and then refuse to listen making up ways a compromise would "infringe" rights. When I demonstrated no one's rights would be. But whatever... bullshit spun one way is still bullshit when spun the other.

Very simple way of not "gutting" anything, except maybe foreign aid and that is bringing jobs back to this country and rebuilding a tax base.

Shrinking jobs, shrinking property taxes, shrinking sales taxes... leads to shrinking tax base which leads to only 2 solutions... raise the taxes on the rich to the point where they themselves leave our country OR cutting everything to the point of being basically a nation with 2 classes the extreme wealthy and poverty. Both of which will eventually lead to total government breakdown as we know it. Then human rights aren't going to fucking matter. People are just going to be trying to survive.

Until jobs come back those are the only solutions that exist. The only way to get a solution that will work is to put aside differences, ego and selfishness and work together.

But we'll keep dividing everyone on the social issues, (which can have simple workable compromises) so that the true issues can keep being dismissed until they blow up.

Like I said, some people truly would rather watch the country implode and destroyed rather than try to compromise and fix it. I'm not one of them.

If you consider the constitution of your nation to be bullshit, then I suppose my justification is bullshit. Pan, you are not going up against my "bullshit justifications," you are going up against the United States Constitution. And one cannot be foisted upon where one is not involved in something. You cannot foist gay marriage upon someone who isn't gay. You cannot foist abortion upon someone unless you physically force them to have one. No one is doing that.

And you failed to demonstrate how no one's rights would be infringed. Your argument that it's okay to bar a gay couple from getting married and that they could just go out of state to get hitched is ridiculous. I demonstrated why that was. It wouldn't be much different than if a state started telling Latinos that they couldn't receive a public education, that they would have to go to another state to get one. But that wouldn't be an infringement or anything, because, you know, they can totally still get an education somewhere. Ridiculous.

I'm not refusing to listen: I read you loud and clear. Maybe that's my problem.

You haven't quite offered any solutions yourself. How do you propose generating jobs domestically? Is your position like that of the Tea Party?

I find it odd when people take my accusations and turn them back on me without even comprehending why they were levied in the first place and with no regard as to how they might or might not apply to me.

When I correctly accused the Tea Party to having hatred as their commonality, regarding their social issues, I did so not as an emotional reaction or as an insult, but as an observation; my accusation was a judgment based on evidence. When, in turn, I'm accused of hatred without an evidence upon which to base that judgment, all it tells me is I'm talking to a wall, a party of simple reaction and no ability to self reflect. It's basically the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument.

Now that I have all the information I need—the Tea Party's official social issues according to their own websites are functionally identical to those of the right and the GOP, when you speak to actual Tea Party members, their stances on social issues are identical and even right of the GOP, those social issues all revolve around hatred or a lack of acceptance of either people or reality (read: anti-intellectualism leads to fear which leads to hatred, duh), and when confronted, Tea Partiers and their advocates don't have a solid logical or legal foundation for said social beliefs—I feel like the conversation is over.

I feel like the conversation is over. I feel like if the conversation taking place continues, it will do nothing but devolve into what it was before Jazz jumped in the leaf pile. It's going to be trolling and flame-baiting and eventually it will force the moderation staff to overreact and there will be 'vacations'. The question is this: can we change the conversation, please? Can we get to a topic that won't end in people shouting at their monitors?

Pan, you can't compromise constitutional rights. You just can't. it's all or nothing. And your examples of gun restrictions and liquor restrictions, as has been pointed out, affect ALL PEOPLE. your "compromise" only affects GAY PEOPLE. that is still discrimination.

i agree completely, rahl...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...s/facepalm.jpg

"compromise" in tea-party speak appears to mean "agree with me"

because if you dont.....why.....america's gonna burn and you're responsible.

pan's way of putting things is a perfect little reproduction of how the tea party works, though. all the more perfect because no doubt he'd deny it. then he'd talk about compromise and how good it is and how we are all destroying america.

I'm glad Uncle Phil is here to remind us that penises on old, great works of art can be evidence that we're growing larger on average as a species. It's a fun threadjack.

And if you don't want the government removing choices, then you have no basis for standing against infanticide. Come on now, none but the most ardent anarchists are for a complete withdrawal of government from "our daily lives". Use just a little imagination and see the magical italics: "less government intrusion". Of course liberals, conservatives, and their subgroups are going to differ on which areas the government should be less intrusive (or more intrusive). That tea partiers see a number of areas where the government isn't, in their view, present enough, doesn't exactly give you a slam-dunk case that they don't believe in smaller government. It's possible for the government to be overbearing in some areas and too lax in others simultaneously.

I don't doubt that there's hypocrisy in the tea party movement. (Not to as great of a degree as with Republicans or Democrats, but hey, it's a young movement.) But you seem to think it's easier to spot than it actually is.

well, we're in the modern world and if you're thinking inside of the capitalist mode of production the state is integral to it. and what's been obvious for some time is---like i said---conservatives tend to support the repressive state and others to support a more redistributive state. personally, i'd prefer a far more social-democratic approach, which in the present context would mean very significant cuts in military and other security expenditures and a reorientation of state policy away from the national security state toward something about industry and/or job creation. and education. that sort of thing.

it's well past time to dismantle the national security state.


the tea partiers tend, from what i've been able to figure out, to support increasing current levels of military spending while somehow imagining they can cut taxes and compensate for it by allowing the entire non-military economy to collapse (this an outline of the logic that'd follow in policy terms from what they say).

i wasn't joking earlier about the relation of the right to a notion of natural hierarchy as a jutification for diverting resources into repression.
and i wasn't joking when i talked about the ways in which the illusion that the conservative Subject---the position interpellated or constructed or posited through the ideology as its "object" or the person whom the constructs are "about"---is under continual attack is of a piece with the same thing.

the right is pretty transparent in terms of how most of its positions fit together if you think about it.

what makes contemporary conservatism in the us problematic (in my view) is not that it's ideologically smart--it isn't...but it is deftly fitted to the needs both of the economic masters it serves and the constituency it mobilizes in the service of those masters (one which is not at all the same)---but that the right is **organized** and that at the grassroots level and **very** efficiently.

the big fight, it seems to me, is between the tea partiers and republican party over who is going to be able to better use the organizational system to get out bodies at elections. the way that conflict goes---and i think (i am not sure, but i think) that's what we're seeing now, a conflict within the right---will determine the way the battle unfolds. it could be about a splitting of the right (i'm all for anything that weakens conservatives, so yay)---or it could be a struggle over who controls the republican party. at this point it's hard to say.

that's my take.

That's why I don't like the less govt intrusion position to begin with. You either have to accept that the govt is going to dictate and decide certain issues, be they left or right, or its hands off for everything except its outlined responsibilities in the constitution. They don't want less govt intrusion they want a govt that intrudes when it fits their agenda and one that backs off when it doesn't. That's not a smaller, less intrusive govt its a right wing govt that will be used to its fullest to suit their needs. (And yes both sides do this). Perhaps hypocrisy was too strong of a word but it is rather contradictive.

But again I was suggesting that the above list isn't so much a platform as it is a way to recruit as many conservatives as possible by throwing out vague right wing ideals weather they contradict one another or not.