Let this be my last post ever in Tilted... as Porky Pig once said ....."ble ble ble That's all folks"

Neither of those pairings are mutually exclusive.

No and I get what there saying but I think its disingenuous or at least badly worded because it isn't what they really want. It come across as hypocritical to say government is to intrusive while at the same time asking them to define traditional family values (ie legislate) which is probably one of the more intrusive things a government could do. So yes they want the government out of their wallets and gun cabinets but apparently not of out of the bedroom and wedding chapels. That's not less intrusion, its just an intrusion they don't have to worry about.

If they truly wanted a government that operates in a less intrusive way they'd be consistent about it across the board like the old school conservatives tended to be.

In other words, it's not simply "less government", it's "less government we disagree with and more government we agree with", which should go without saying. We all want that, we just don't agree on what should be more and what should be less. The characterization of a stance of less government is oversimplified to the point of being dishonest.

But it's a good tag line to get someone to join your party, even though it's no different than any other party.

That's exactly it Will, only you worded it much better then I could while being half way through a bottle of Jack. :D

Derwood, I agree I think its just one of those one liners you toss out to get people interested regardless of weather you mean it or not.

Too inflexible and ideological in my opinion. Saying that tea partiers should have no opinion on social issues is like saying atheists should have no opinion on religious matters...such as where religious insitutions - mosques, for example - should or should not be built. But of course they do. When they say less intrusive government, do you really think they mean 100% less intrusive, zero government intervention, period? I don't think so myself, for this implies they are incapable of managing their own communities. And like pan was saying, different parts of this country hold vastly different beliefs (and to differing degrees) across the entire political spectrum.

What's that libertarian creedo again? Other people's business is their own unless they're doing clear harm to others? I don't think that's the wording, but that's the message. If the Tea Partiers want to get together and have opinion parties, super-duper. These aren't opinion parties, though, they're an astroturf movement to enact political changes. I respect someone that's pro-life or that doesn't understand or appreciate homosexuality so long as those opinions remain personal opinions. It's when you start forcing your personal opinions on people that they stop being opinions and start being tyranny.

I think everyone understands the concept of less intrusive government (which on the list in question is actually worded "intrusive government stopped" nothing to do with less and what I was initially referring too) but what isn't understood is why its often touted as being a major part of many conservative platforms. To me stopping intrusive government means you want the government to both stay out of matters it shouldn't be involved with as well as not being overbearing with matters it should be. When a group like the Tea Party places this on a list of major, non negotiable beliefs (they certainly aren't the first) and then seemingly supports legislation about marriage, reproductive rights, a national language and what people can and can't do with their own property (the mosque issue discussed on page 4ish) people rightfully get a little confused about where they actually stand. Its as though they want the best of both worlds.

It seems to be a major sticking point with many conservatives but (as Will wrote above) "it's "less government we disagree with and more government we agree with"". That's what practically every member of every party in the US ultimately wants, yet the Tea Party (and many conservatives) seem to be tossing it around as a sign that they are somehow anti big government. If this was the case they and other like minded conservatives wouldn't give a damn about most social issues because it shouldn't be any of the governments business (and in turn theirs) in the first place. They should be up to the individual (in most cases) but at the very least they should have no real business on a national platform.

Its an interesting point for me because it should give us a great insight into how they stand on social issues and yet somehow it doesn't. The Tea Party has been vague at best on where they stand on social issues and to be honest from what I've seen they are nowhere near as oppressive as some other groups on the right, at least so far. But its hard to pin down what they stand for socially when they seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths about what the government's role in these issues should be.

All of that keeps leading me back to the party just being a mess over what it actually stands for and they're all over the place trying to reel in as many right wing voters as possible in an attempt to increase their national presence. In the meantime the rest of us will be left scratching our heads and wondering what in gods name they are really trying to do and what kind of political change they really want.

I think the problem with that analogy is a an atheists isn't very likely to insist others follow their beliefs. Sure some are going to ask that religious displays be removed from public buildings and schools. But that not the same as insisting gays not allowed to be married, or women not have the right to choose. Or you can built a church here but you can't build a mosque here.

And again the US Con. doesn't allow you to deny rights in some communities just because you allow them in others.

Pan,

The government will be forcing other people's views on you when it makes you marry a dude. Until then, a dude marrying another dude just doesn't thrust (snicker) anyone else's values on you. It just doesn't..........it...just...doesn't.