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...
....lybob Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) The real original Tea party an act of protest against The British East Indian Company Fighting evil multinational corporations an American foundation. Edited April 1, 2011 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Lets try to remember that politics, like life, isn't a zero sum game. All parties have a great mission statement and want to provide people with what they need, build a strong economy, etc.... Sometimes they get blinded by their own agenda and lose sight of what the agenda is trying to accomplish. Actually, it's more than sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Great mission statement emphasizing the shiny, bright, new, beautiful ideals of the Tea Party movement. Now that some of their first elected officials are not living up to their campaign promises, the necessary addendum to the mission statement is (as Chef so eloquently stated): "(If) you don't follow your mission statement we will fire you". Again, it's all shiny and new, so I withhold judgement until this proves itself one way or another. The problem I have with the Tea Party is the dark underside which many of you like to deny exists. Despite it's seeming focus on the country's financial problems, there seems to be a deep-seeded faith-based element to it. While many of you won't have any problem with this, I hardly see this as an example of getting back to what the Founding Fathers were all about. In a lot of ways I see the Tea Party as a more fiscally responsible wing of the holier-than-thou Republican party, but I do have my biases as far as that stuff goes. I also feel that there is an element of racism in the movement - another thing that many people will deny until they're blue in the face. I think the Tea Party's demographics speak for themselves as far as that stuff goes. It's almost not even worth arguing because it's really just a subjective judgement. All in all, once the shine wears off, I expect the Tea Party to regress toward the mean and blend back into a (possibly) slightly more fiscally conservative Republican Party. Maybe I'm just being cynical. Oh this is just great. You can't leave the religious people alone, can you Gene? Who the F is talking religion at this point in the thread? Yet, who decides to bring it up? Man, you have to get over this, you are being exactly as intolerant as you claim the people you are clearly bigoted against of being. That's right, I'm calling you out as a bigot, because you are. I am also calling you a hypocrite, as you have demonstrated that clearly in this post. While we are on the topic of "feeling" things and not backing them up with a single shred of evidence, let's apply Frenklespeak to Frenkle: [Frenklespeak] I feel that Gene Frenkle likes to put his thing into little boys - he may deny it until he's blue in the face, but, it's my "feeling", and my affected brain tells me I am allowed to cast ridiculous aspersions on total strangers. So therefore, you can't argue with me, because not only have I not constructed an argument, I haven't bothered to present any facts to support it. It's just my "feeling". [/Frenklespeak] So, Gene, please stop having sex with boys, because we all know that your demographics means you like to put your thing in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Threadkiller Extraordinaire strikes again... You're a clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Threadkiller Extraordinaire strikes again... You're a clown. Rather be a clown than an unmitigated moron who doesn't even realize he's contradicting himself in his own posts, and, thinks it's ok to cast aspersions on legions of strangers...because he has a "feeling". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Rather be a clown than an unmitigated moron. But lucky you, you don't have to chose you're both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 Rather be a clown than an unmitigated moron who doesn't even realize he's contradicting himself in his own posts, and, thinks it's ok to cast aspersions on legions of strangers...because he has a "feeling". When I started this thread I knew that some of the left wing nut jobs would not be able to resist posting in it. I asked for comments on the mission statement, knowing full well that certain posters would try to get the thread off topic. They could have no real argument against the mission statement so they would throw up canards in order to disparage the Tea Party movement. They are collectively filling in very well for Connor, but in so doing have become my sock puppets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 The threads have evolved into the "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you" status... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 The threads have evolved into the "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you" status... It's the Jews Zionist's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 It's the Jews Zionist's fault. You're just PARROTING your reach-around buddy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 You're just PARROTING your reach-around buddy! You're an idiot. No particular reason, I just haven't pointed it out in a while, and don't want you to forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) When I started this thread I knew that some of the left wing nut jobs would not be able to resist posting in it. I asked for comments on the mission statement, knowing full well that certain posters would try to get the thread off topic. They could have no real argument against the mission statement so they would throw up canards in order to disparage the Tea Party movement. They are collectively filling in very well for Connor, but in so doing have become my sock puppets. Wow...is that what you did? Man, you got us...good one! If you had started this on April 1st, no way I would have fallen for it!! Edited April 1, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 You're an idiot. No particular reason, I just haven't pointed it out in a while, and don't want you to forget. Really? No particular reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Really? No particular reason? Nope, not today. Just a general observation. Day's not over yet, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 since it's very doubtful the big brand republican RINO's will ever fully "get it" or that is assuming they want to and are not happily complacent as democrat lite. I am waiting for when the Tea party decides its time to become their own 3rd party and stick to their guiding principles. I honestly feel it is the only chance this country has to correct our bloated government establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 When I started this thread I knew that some of the left wing nut jobs would not be able to resist posting in it. I asked for comments on the mission statement, knowing full well that certain posters would try to get the thread off topic. They could have no real argument against the mission statement so they would throw up canards in order to disparage the Tea Party movement. They are collectively filling in very well for Connor, but in so doing have become my sock puppets. Dan posted a link which illustrates why any party mission statement is nothing more than a glorified marketing campaign. I don't think it got the attention it deserved, so I'll post the mission statement of the Democrats, Republicans to show how meaningless it really is. I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in each: Democratic Party "The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, open, honest and accountable government, and securing our nation while protecting our civil rights and liberties." Republican Party "Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home." Now, with that hypocrisy fresh in your mind, simply extrapolate: Tea Party "The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 In short, I don't think that people, libs included, are against what the Tea Party says it stands for. I just think people smell a whole lot of BS whenever a political party tells them what it stands for. Ideally, a political party shouldn't HAVE to tell you what it stands for - it actions should tell you all you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Democratic Party "The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe [through supplication and appeasement of every foreign nation, particularly those that don't particularly care for us] and expanding opportunity for every American [by limiting the incentive to produce and transferring resources from those who create opportunity to the non-productive]. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic government growth, affordable government health care for all Americans, [government] retirement security, open, honest and accountable government[ ] , and securing our nation [by ignoring our borders] while protecting our civil rights and liberties[unless you're white]." Republican Party "Republicans have a long and rich history [of doing what the democrats suggest with a little bit of conservative garnish sprinkled] with basic [marketing] principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions[unless a poll says otherwise]; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home [and carried out abroad]." Fixed In short, I don't think that people, libs included, are against what the Tea Party says it stands for. I just think people smell a whole lot of BS whenever a political party tells them what it stands for. Ideally, a political party shouldn't HAVE to tell you what it stands for - it actions should tell you all you need to know. Libs (not necessarily your average rank and file Democrats) typically support high progressive taxes, and government supply of virtually all "necessities", which they define much more broadly than would I. In essence, they want the government to provide a virtually unconditional middle class existence to everyone at the expense of those who choose to produce. They won't say it outright, but when you break down their arguments, that's what you're left with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Democratic Party "The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe [through supplication and appeasement of every foreign nation, particularly those that don't particularly care for us] and expanding opportunity for every American [by limiting the incentive to produce and transferring resources from those who create opportunity to the non-productive]. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic government growth, affordable government health care for all Americans, [government] retirement security, open, honest and accountable government[ ] , and securing our nation [by ignoring our borders] while protecting our civil rights and liberties[unless you're white]." Republican Party "Republicans have a long and rich history [of doing what the democrats suggest with a little bit of conservative garnish sprinkled] with basic [marketing] principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions[unless a poll says otherwise]; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home [and carried out abroad]." Fixed Libs (not necessarily your average rank and file Democrats) typically support high progressive taxes, and government supply of virtually all "necessities", which they define much more broadly than would I. In essence, they want the government to provide a virtually unconditional middle class existence to everyone at the expense of those who choose to produce. They won't say it outright, but when you break down their arguments, that's what you're left with. Exactly my point about "mission statements", though with a little more one-sided fervor of course... Trying to be fair and balanced: Republican Party "Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home." Neo-Cons (not necessarily your average rank and file Republicans) typically only support small government and equal rights for all straight, pro-life, gun-totin' white Christian males. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 When I started this thread I knew that some of the left wing nut jobs would not be able to resist posting in it. I asked for comments on the mission statement, knowing full well that certain posters would try to get the thread off topic. They could have no real argument against the mission statement so they would throw up canards in order to disparage the Tea Party movement. They are collectively filling in very well for Connor, but in so doing have become my sock puppets. Then try a thread on Bush. There are some pretty bad things (just like any politician). But in reading his book, I find it amazing how he revamped national security. Also, it is ridiculous that people say he isn't conservative, just because he spent a lot- each successive president spends more than the last. Its all a political game, which hopefully will come to a stop soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts