Where is the Tea Party on social issues? - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 08-10-2010, 05:05 PM

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

Quote:

Desiderata (Latin: "desired things", plural of desideratum) is a prose poem by German-American writer Max Ehrmann. It exhorts the reader to "be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be", and to "keep peace with your soul". "With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams," wrote Ehrmann, "it is still a beautiful world."

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.

FoolThemAll · 08-10-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wes Mantooth

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.

Neither of those pairings are mutually exclusive.

Wes Mantooth · 08-10-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

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.

Willravel · 08-10-2010, 06:37 PM

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.

Derwood · 08-10-2010, 06:44 PM

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

Wes Mantooth · 08-10-2010, 06:47 PM

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

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.

powerclown · 08-10-2010, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

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.

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.

Willravel · 08-10-2010, 08:57 PM

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.

Wes Mantooth · 08-10-2010, 11:10 PM

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.

Tully Mars · 08-11-2010, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

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.

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.

Cimarron29414 · 08-11-2010, 05:35 AM

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.

08-10-2010, 06:44 PM	#205 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	But it's a good tag line to get someone to join your party, even though it's no different than any other party. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

08-10-2010, 06:47 PM	#206 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	That's exactly it Will, only you worded it much better then I could while being half way through a bottle of Jack. 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. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

08-10-2010, 11:10 PM	#209 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	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. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

08-11-2010, 05:35 AM	#211 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 08-25-2010 at 11:07 AM..

08-10-2010, 06:37 PM	#204 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

08-10-2010, 08:57 PM	#208 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.