3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 I have a problem with it. What the !@#$ does "fiscal responsibility mean"? Is it "fiscally responsible" to slash away at domestic programs (whatever, fine by me) while continuing to increase military spending and continuing to treat aid to Israel as a 3rd rail (not fine by me)? What constitutes "excessive taxation"? What about "excessive spending"? Seems like there's a lot of room for "tea party" politicians to claim to adhere to this mission statement while not being fiscally responsible at all. I'm sure everyone on this board is against "excessive taxation" and "excessive spending," the question lies in how we define such things. The mission statement goes on to talk about how they want "Constitutionally limited government" but there are vastly different interpretations of the Constitution even among those who are the very depositories of the laws: courts and judges. Frankly, the last things I want are more lawmakers who polish their **** with terms like "fiscally responsible" when, in reality, they're spending more and more money on a military that intervenes virtually everywhere and a tiny country that can spend its own money on their military. Jeez, and I haven't even mentioned the "family values" bull **** that so many "tea party" politicians cling to. Sure, the market can be free, but your bodies and bedrooms can't! !@#$ that. Tom's not the only one who's ornery today. Being fiscally responsible is not spending more than you bring in. (over the long haul)The mission statement clearly states it has nothing to do with social issues. The Tea Party movement consists of a broad spectrum of people with a broad spectrum of social beliefs. It's the f'n media and liberal elite who have tried to make them out as extremists, racists and kooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Being fiscally responsible is not spending more than you bring in. (over the long haul)The mission statement clearly states it has nothing to do with social issues. The Tea Party movement consists of a broad spectrum of people with a broad spectrum of social beliefs. It's the f'n media and liberal elite who have tried to make them out as extremists, racists and kooks. Finally, definitive proof! Thanks for clearing that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Yes, I think the Founding Fathers thought it important to keep religion separate from government. Racisim implied by the demographics and some of the racist propaganda infecting the internet which I believe originates anonymously from people involved in the movement. Like I said, just my opinion, which is clearly subjective. No, meatball, I just saw you ranting obsessively about this bulletproof mission statement you just read and thought I'd !@#$ with you a bit. The founding fathers generally respected God but felt it was the governments job to insure freedom of religion, not to promote it. As far as racism goes your comments above would be like me saying that the Congressional Black Caucus is racist based on their demographics, although the Tea party wouldn't be as racist because it has people of all races in it. I was ranting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Being fiscally responsible is not spending more than you bring in. (over the long haul) You see, then, where there is a lot of room to squirm around and spend money on stupid things while still parading about and declaring that you're "fiscally responsible"? The mission statement clearly states it has nothing to do with social issues. I realize this but, as has been stated in this thread, it's the people and the folks that represent those people that make up the movement. Many (not all) of the local "tea party" politicians and the more nationally recognized ones cling to this "family values" crap. Even Rand Paul is "100% pro life," and wants the government to define "human life" for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The founding fathers generally respected God but felt it was the governments job to insure freedom of religion, not to promote it. As far as racism goes your comments above would be like me saying that the Congressional Black Caucus is racist based on their demographics, although the Tea party wouldn't be as racist because it has people of all races in it. I was ranting? You can believe whatever you like, just keep it out of government and don't try to legislate your morals. This is what separation of church and state is all about. I don't think the Tea Party is living up to that ideal, so the "as the Founding Fathers intended" seems like lip service for cutting entitlement programs and other liberal budget items. I agree that the Black Caucus is racist. You remind me of Gene Frenkle in a religious thread. You're just itching to pounce, almost like you can't help yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 You remind me of Gene Frenkle in a religious thread. You're just itching to pounce, almost like you can't help yourself. You remind me of LeviF91 in real life. You're referring to yourself in the 3rd person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 You remind me of LeviF91 in real life. You're referring to yourself in the 3rd person. I'm referring to my online persona in the third person. Does that count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 You can believe whatever you like, just keep it out of government and don't try to legislate your morals. This is what separation of church and state is all about. I don't think the Tea Party is living up to that ideal, so the "as the Founding Fathers intended" seems like lip service for cutting entitlement programs and other liberal budget items. I agree that the Black Caucus is racist. You remind me of Gene Frenkle in a religious thread. You're just itching to pounce, almost like you can't help yourself. The last thing I want to do is legislate anyone else's morals. Like I want to get rid of the Sundowner? Again, the Tea Party's mission statement specifically states that it has nothing to do with social issues. Do individual members have anything to with social issues? Of course they do. Some are pro life and others aren't. So what? If we are going to be fiscally responsible without taxing us into a third world status something is going to have to be done with entitlement programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) The last thing I want to do is legislate anyone else's morals. Like I want to get rid of the Sundowner? Again, the Tea Party's mission statement specifically states that it has nothing to do with social issues. Do individual members have anything to with social issues? Of course they do. Some are pro life and others aren't. So what? If we are going to be fiscally responsible without taxing us into a third world status something is going to have to be done with entitlement programs. I have been told for years that once you have an entitlement program, you can't take it away. If you hear it enough, it must be true I'm referring to my online persona in the third person. Does that count? The Rock says stop it now! lol Edited March 31, 2011 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I'm referring to my online persona in the third person. Does that count? Levi seems to think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 I'm referring to my online persona in the third person. Does that count? It's settled then. I will not try to regulate you and Levi's bedroom behavior. You two can do whatever you want to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The last thing I want to do is legislate anyone else's morals. Like I want to get rid of the Sundowner? Again, the Tea Party's mission statement specifically states that it has nothing to do with social issues. Do individual members have anything to with social issues? Of course they do. Some are pro life and others aren't. So what? If we are going to be fiscally responsible without taxing us into a third world status something is going to have to be done with entitlement programs. All I'm really saying is that you can't look at the mission statement in a vacuum. Are you saying there are a lot of secular Tea Party members? Lots of pro-choice, socially liberal Tea Party members? My opinion is that they're stance on social issues is almost as unified as their stance on fiscal issues. Just because it's not in the mission statement doesn't mean that it's not implied by the common social agenda of its membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Yes, I think the Founding Fathers thought it important to keep religion separate from government. Racisim implied by the demographics and some of the racist propaganda infecting the internet which I believe originates anonymously from people involved in the movement. Like I said, just my opinion, which is clearly subjective. So seeing the NHL is played by mostly white guys and attended by mostly white people is it racist? So based on some anonymously posted stuff on the internet you're saying that the tea party is racists? Based on the I would think that Tom is a dickhead....oh wait. Looking up quotes from the Founding Fathers on the separations of church and state I found this one. Pretty funny. He should post here more often. When Alexander Hamilton was asked why the U.S. Constitution made no mention of God, he said the country did not require 'foreign aid'; when his mother insisted on a serious reply, he explained, 'We forgot.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) All I'm really saying is that you can't look at the mission statement in a vacuum. Are you saying there are a lot of secular Tea Party members? Lots of pro-choice, socially liberal Tea Party members? My opinion is that they're stance on social issues is almost as unified as their stance on fiscal issues. Just because it's not in the mission statement doesn't mean that it's not implied by the common social agenda of its membership. Fair point, but then you need to be specific about examples of individual so called Members in order to discredit their actual adherence to their own beliefs. Kinda like right wing Christians condemning someone who doesn't believe the way they do... Isn't their own belief predicated upon God and Jesus being the judge not them... Nothing like organized religion to F up the teachings of Jesus, but that is my belief and what others would call opinion. Whatever, but that is why I used the example of Mike Pence at the beginning of my rant. The rest of my rant just kinda went on. Edited March 31, 2011 by yellowlinesandarmadillos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Are you referring to the part that says something like "we believe it is possible to know the original intent of the government that our founding fathers......."? The question that I asked you had to do with your believing in fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. You still haven't answered that. All you'll say is that you have no problem with it as a mission statement for the Tea Party. Can you answer my original question? an acronym for It's a movement named after the Boston Tea Party with tea being "Taxed Enough Already". Thanks for the history lesson! Maybe you should coach up Michelle Bachman on history! So, you can't see the problem that I would have (because I am not affiliating myself with the Tea Party movement) separating ideas like the one you apparently don't think is important ("we believe it is possible to know the original intent of the government that our founding fathers.......") with then taking that principle and deciding what is fiscally responsible? No offense, because, I have to tell you, when the "Tea Party" movement first began, I was very curious about it. I think, if we were all honest with ourselves, we would be thrilled with the idea of a legitimate 3rd political party. But, 3 years later, I haven't heard anything but rhetoric...Tea Party candidates have made some impressive in-roads, but, have, so far, only disappointed the people who elected them. I know as someone who has assisted in writing a few mission statements in my time, they aren't worth the time put into them, when the people who write them go back to their offices and ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 And you wonder why the Tea Party is so easy to discredit. Truth is easy to discredit? Take a look again at the core values of the Tea Party and explain why they are not on the good side. Take another look at Obama's wife and tell me she's good looking or even average. Problem is I can't see your eyes when you say "yes" to confirm your lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) Truth is easy to discredit? Take a look again at the core values of the Tea Party and explain why they are not on the good side. Take another look at Obama's wife and tell me she's good looking or even average. Problem is I can't see your eyes when you say "yes" to confirm your lying. What on earth to Michelle Obama's looks have to do with anything? You discredit any argument you are trying to make...core values? And what truth are you talking about? It's an ideal...the elected officials under the Tea Party umbrella are the ones who will determine if it is truth? In case you missed this...it was all the rage a few months ago...it isn't far from the truth... Edited April 1, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 http://www.teapartyp...rg/mission.aspx Please read the link to the Tea Party mission statement and debate its merits. No need to try to confuse the issue with terms like "teabaggers" or make claims that it is racist or a bunch of fundamental whacko christians. Debate the mission statement only or be seen as the partisan hack you are. You seem to be implying that, based on their mission statement, the Tea Party is great and good. But, let me ask... can you really find a whole lot wrong with any political party's mission statement? From 2008: US Political Parties. Mission Statements are carefully crafted words that mean very little without the actions behind them. Give me a party that pushes through term limits for all Congressional Representatives and Senators and then you may be on to something; until then its all just nice talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) youtube.com/watch?v=OmzH5hlsGfo From a founder of the movement, that's pretty damned incriminating... But some people think it's important to say that they find Michelle Obama unattractive and that's what REALLY counts. So very telling. Edited April 1, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts