# Questions for Tea Partiers



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

I moved to Nevada from Houston a while back. Houston is great. It is also mostly Conservative. Not Conservative like I see today but more like Reagan / Bush era Conservative. I liked that.
So when we got here, a new friend invited me to one of these Tea Party meetings. It was actually a Tea Party in that they served tea but it might have been accurately called a Tea Soda & Beer Party. It was nice and seemed as social as political. Lots of people who knew each other and hated Obama - whom they all seemed to actually believe is both Kenyan and Muslim.
My friend asked what I thought afterward (he was obviously in recruiting mode) and I ended up on this and two other boards.
So I'd like to get some clarification from Tea Partiers as there seems to be a lot of conflicting or even self-contradictng posts.
1. One poster claims the ONLY thing the TP is concerned about is the budget. I don't find this credible. What say you?
2. Lots of you claim you want to return to a Constitutional government. The problem I have is that you all seem to believe that only your interpretation of the Constitution is the right one. Ex: I asked about owning a machine gun, RPG or Nuke under the 2nd Amendment. Three TP's who agreed with each other all responded. They gave three different responses and reasons why. Then they all claimed the USC never needs to be interpreted. Connect those dots..
3. Do you believe Obama is a Kenyan? Muslim? Really?
4. Would you overturn Roe v Wade?
5. Would you close all our foreign military bases? Most? Some? None? THis is an area you guys seem pretty diverse on.
6. The list a government agencies you would eliminate is also quite varied. EPA? CIA? USDA? FAA? I don't find any of those UnConstitutional and although I know there is waste and inefficiency, would keep them all. I can explain my reasoning and if you disagree, guess what? That doesn't mean you're "an ignorant statists libtard socialist!" or whatever. But I'm curious as to how extensive a list you have. 
7. So. Can I go get my Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher now? They had cannons back in the FF's day! How about mounting a .50 cal on my upstairs porch overlooking the street? My own personal nuke?
8. Health Care. Hmm. I think ObamaCare sucks balls. What would you do about healtch care for the poor? Anything? Nothing? Soylent Green?
9. Gay Marriage. Will it make you gay? Do you not care? 
10. Gays in Military. Will our troops become sissies? 
11. Taxes. Flat tax? Fair tax? Thumb tax?
12. Do you think Michelle Bachmann was correct when she said the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to abolish slavery?
13. Do you think Sarah Palin is unfairly attacked by the Media?
14. Do you think FOX is too liberal? Fair and unbiased? Has a Conservative agenda?
15. Do you think any of our problems are in part, the fault of Bush? 
16. How about that water-boarding! 
17. Was the debt ceiling thing all the Dems fault?
18. Do you think Job Creators like Big Oil and MNE's should get special tax breaks or subsidies that other companies do not? Why?
19. Is America a Christian Nation? What does that mean?
20. How about PAC and lobbyist contributions? Keep em secret?

These are some of the things where you guys seem to have more diversity of views. I've seen TP's who have as much disdain for Bush as Obama - well almost. There are TP's who don't care what gays do or where. Others want to send them to camps to get cured by God. It's all over the place.
So you can just go with Yes or No but I came here to learn about you guys and so far, I've found out I'm a Liberal because I don't think carrying an M-4 into my local pub is a good idea. LOTS of tongue in cheek here folks - btw, if you guys didn't get so instantly pissed off at everyone who disagreed with you, you would get much more attentive ears. Have a little humor!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?



They're nuanced to the point of being paralyzed with indecision.


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 9, 2011)

Dont get me started, how about the fiscally conservative socially liberal types...

They are so smug they think they deserve two votes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?
> ...



Can they really be THAT clueless?  Is it physically possible?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?



Yeah you're right. All we do is decide every election anyway. So the first two responses are? 

Dodges? Implied insults? Any answers to any direct questions on issues? Not yet.

Seems like anger and pouting can get you guys momentum for a while but eventually at least a tad of substance would be helpful.

Here, let me reverse the situation. Ask me my view on any issue or subject. I will answer directly and specifically. Us darn Independents are like that!


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 9, 2011)

Pander to the middle at your own peril.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?



Yeah, heaven forbid they aren't drooling robots like you guys.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?
> ...



I'm not a politician so I don't give a fuck what you "Think" about anything. 

I can't imagine living in a Free country undergoing a Progressive Jihad as we are now and going, "Gee, What's this? Golly, what's that? Oh, I just don't know"

Want substance? Get in the fucking game before we lose our country!!!  Figure the fuck out what side your own, no better first figure out what the sides are, but I'm sure the war will be over by the time you do


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Wow! You little girls are really scared sh1tless of a few questions! 

How cute. I guess you girls can all congratulate yourselves on your pretty little pink tea party dresses and do what is predictible of you:
Dodge the issues.
Insult anyone with the audacity (love using that word with you girls) to ask you about the issues.
Change the subject.
Cut & Run.

But if you want to see how a _man_ handles a direct question, just ask me anything. Be happy to show you how it's done. Then maybe you girls can man up a little.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> I moved to Nevada from Houston a while back. Houston is great. It is also mostly Conservative. Not Conservative like I see today but more like Reagan / Bush era Conservative. I liked that.
> So when we got here, a new friend invited me to one of these Tea Party meetings. It was actually a Tea Party in that they served tea but it might have been accurately called a Tea Soda & Beer Party. It was nice and seemed as social as political. Lots of people who knew each other and hated Obama - whom they all seemed to actually believe is both Kenyan and Muslim.
> My friend asked what I thought afterward (he was obviously in recruiting mode) and I ended up on this and two other boards.
> So I'd like to get some clarification from Tea Partiers as there seems to be a lot of conflicting or even self-contradictng posts.
> ...



The people rallied from all spectrums with one common theme.

Fiscal sanity.  That alone is the unifying quality.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?
> ...



Tell me again how the Tea Party are Terrorists, Dear.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Obviously.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Aug 9, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?
> ...



We, Independents/Moderates make decisions at the ballot box, not based on what a narrow ideology tells us but more so by the issues.
We are the group that are the main target of the 100's of million dollar political ads.  Those ads aren't certainly targeting the sheep who are already locked in the fold.
I'd say people who are absolutely married to their ideology are the ones who are incapable of making decisions, they let their ideology make the decisions for them. Thus the echo-chamber effect on these boards driven by shared common talking points.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Here's one, what do you think of the Tea Party


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> The people rallied from all spectrums with one common theme.
> 
> Fiscal sanity.  That alone is the unifying quality.



Thanks. You sound more like the people I met irl at the party. That does seem to be the unifying thread but when you read what posters here write, it seems many have no clue as to where the TP stands on a lot of issues. Or they just "know" that anyone disagreeing or asking questions is somehow intolerable (see above).

So of the 20 issues above, are there any others that you think the TP would have as it's platform? It seems to me that eliminating government agencies is one. While I agree with the concept, I do differ in which ones I would target. Whatcha think?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Oh great, an independent, a moderate AND a misogynist.  What a winning combination.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 9, 2011)

poor old whining liberlorrhoids.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 9, 2011)

Yet another stellar post from willow... wow.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Ah! The Tea Whackjob's (Yes, there are Liberal Whackjobs too) version of the Race Card! So let's see... Hmmm. On this very board, I've mentioned that I think the GOP is making a mistake by not going after Kay Bailey Hutchinson as a candidate. You know, the WOMAN from Texas. 
So it's not that I have a problem with stupid, it's that you're playing the race card... er... gender card. Congrats! You're last elections' Obama supporters! At least you have some people you can share something in common with! Isn't that nice!


----------



## California Girl (Aug 9, 2011)

The TEA Parties have a wide variety of opinions.... much like democrats or republicans. Shocking, I know


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 9, 2011)

I gave some thought to answering your list of questions but after the immature and biased way to which many were presented I decided that it wasn't worth my time to bother with.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

California Girl said:


> The TEA Parties have a wide variety of opinions.... much like democrats or republicans. Shocking, I know



Not surprising at all but since it's new, it's harder to get an idea of what is farily consistent. Look at this thread for example. 10 TP replies. 9 of them are bullsh1t dodges, petty insults and weakling crap. ONE of them is a man who says "Here is what we are about". 
So if you found out the majority of the TP members, in addition to fiscal responsibility, were also for achieving that through higher taxes, would you still be a member? I would bet not. What if any time you asked them whether or not that was the case, they replied by saying "Oh. So you're a liberal mysogynist statist!"

Whereas Liberals are not AFRAID to address the issues.
Abortion?
Unions?
Gun Control?
Seperation of church and state?
Taxes?

I don't even have to ask to know where most Liberals will stand on these issues.
Ask a Liberal about Unions? "They are important and protect workers!" etc...
I disagree with them but at least they don't reply with some BS like "You must be a Conservative for asking!". They have more balls, when it comes to their positions. Hell, I can even tease them and joke around and they don't sh1t their collective pants over it! Gotta admire that.

How much credibility would the TP have with you then? Welcome to what anyone who is not already a card carrying member, experiences when they ask the TPers about issues...


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> I gave some thought to answering your list of questions but after the immature and biased way to which many were presented I decided that it wasn't worth my time to bother with.



I get it. Even if I point out that some of it is tongue in cheek, you guys are so scared and defensive, you do what is predicted:

Dodge the issues
Insult anyone with the audacity to ask you about the issues
Change the subject
Cut & Run


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 9, 2011)

What a fruitful thread so far

The OP asks some thoughtful questions and asks honest opinions

Are Tea Partier's that incapable of honest discussion?


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 9, 2011)

No, you don't "get it". If you did you would have presented your list of questions in an adult manner instead of this Internet drama fashion.


----------



## Jackson (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> I moved to Nevada from Houston a while back. Houston is great. It is also mostly Conservative. Not Conservative like I see today but more like Reagan / Bush era Conservative. I liked that.
> So when we got here, a new friend invited me to one of these Tea Party meetings. It was actually a Tea Party in that they served tea but it might have been accurately called a Tea Soda & Beer Party. It was nice and seemed as social as political. Lots of people who knew each other and hated Obama - whom they all seemed to actually believe is both Kenyan and Muslim.
> My friend asked what I thought afterward (he was obviously in recruiting mode) and I ended up on this and two other boards.
> So I'd like to get some clarification from Tea Partiers as there seems to be a lot of conflicting or even self-contradictng posts.
> ...



Independent, I believe your well thought out post deserves an answer and although I haven't read all of the answers, I would agree with the one that answered, "fiscal sanity."  Although there are many issues that are the hearts of every voter , I believe the crisis that hits every American is the economy.  We have to deal with our first priority and that financial malfeseance gave birth to the Tea Party.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

California Girl said:


> The TEA Parties have a wide variety of opinions.... much like democrats or republicans. Shocking, I know



But, I'm an Independent and I need FDA approved responses in order to form an opinion!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

Oh, let me make it simple and understandable for the Independents and Moderates. I tune right out at the very mention of certain key phrases, for example: ManMade Global Warming, Fossil Fuels, Obama's a Moderate, "I'm an Independent"


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 9, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Yet another stellar post from willow... wow.



it's true though, he claims to be an independent thinker after he posts 20 questions that include all liberalorrhoidal talking points. who the hell does he think he's kidding? you obviously.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 9, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> I gave some thought to answering your list of questions but after the immature and biased way to which many were presented I decided that it wasn't worth my time to bother with.



Now here is an independent thinker.


----------



## California Girl (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > The TEA Parties have a wide variety of opinions.... much like democrats or republicans. Shocking, I know
> ...



The following is the official 10 points that the TP required to support a candidate in 2010. Perhaps it will help you.

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an All-of-the-Above Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

Contract FROM America


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

Where is it written that anyone has to appeal to Independents?

Politicians pretend they give a crap, because they have to. But for us on a political message board to have to pretend to explain things to these airheads is just a waste of electrons


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

It's a whiny little missive that goes, "Pay attention to me because I don't have an opinion!"


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

California Girl said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Okay. That sounds fine. Let's see where we agree:
1. This is a non-position. Obviously, you don't mean the document itself. So what I would guess you mean is your interpretation of it. This is an area that I have a problem with. It's like people trying to ram Islam down my throat. I've already got my own religion thanks.
2. Okay.
3. Great! But how specifially? Everyone says this but details seem elusive.
4. How?
5. Seems like a restate of 1 & 3
6. restate of 3
7. Obamacare sucks big time. I would be all for a repeal (That's proof that willow is right about me being a Liberal).
8. What's that?
9. restate of 3 again
10. Which ones? You mean letting the Bush rates expire or others, as well.

If nothing else, kudos for being someone who can provide at least a few issues. I would be just fine with points 2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 9. Dont know about 1, 8 or 10 because of details.

So because I've agreed at least in spirit, with you on 7 of 10 points, you may rest assured, the whackjobs will label me a "Liberal" (or already have without knowing my positions on issues).


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's a whiny little missive that goes, "Pay attention to me because I don't have an opinion!"



Hmmm. You posted 5+ times here and haven't stated an opinion an a single issue. Must be referring to yourself.
Whereas, I've put forth my opinion on the issues discussed with me. Maybe someday when you grow a pair, you'll be able to do the same!


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another stellar post from willow... wow.
> ...



So sorry. Didn't mean to make obvious your cowardice. You just keep doing the only things you know how to:

Dodge
Insult anyone with the audacity to ask you about issues.
Change the subject
Cut & Run.

Poor baby. Get picked on a lot in high school didja? Didn't exactly come out summa? It's okay. At least you have a nice cat.

Here. Tell ya what. You just let me know which of these issues are "Liberal":

Spending
Abortion
Military presence and spending
Defense of Marriage v Gay Rights
Gun control
water-boarding
Tax subsidies and breaks
PAC & Lobbyist influence on government

So only the Liberals are concerned with those things? Danm! Well then screw the TP, I want someone in charge who at least considers these legitimate political issues! 

You may now continue dodging, insulting, changing the subject or just Cut & Run


----------



## hortysir (Aug 9, 2011)

:yawn:


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



Don't bother. Crusader is an asshole and a moron, and Willow is... well Willow is just Willow. I think you nailed her down pretty well.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oh, let me make it simple and understandable for the Independents and Moderates. I tune right out at the very mention of certain key phrases, for example: ManMade Global Warming, Fossil Fuels, Obama's a Moderate, "I'm an Independent"




Okay, let's see if we can find the ignorant whackjob in the crowd.

I have never said nor do I believe that Global Warming is Man-Made or even factual. Frankly, I'm just not convinced of it. Seems to be plenty of reason for both arguments.

I think Obama sucks and is one of the worst presidents we've had in my lifetime. 

Btw, I'm pro-gun ownership, anti-union, a business owner who thinks American businesses get screwed by both Reps and Dems, Christian, a vet who believes in strong defense, think ObamCare is danm near criminal, hate Pelosi and Reed (but then again, also Boehner and Cantor) and you know - all that "Liberal" stuff... 

Hmmm. I forgot about the other whackjob tactic. If you're a weak little puss with no strength or conviction, label the other side and project views onto them that you don't even know they have.

So let's see. We've had about 20 replies from Tea Partiers. 16 of them never addressed and issue and were really, just plain whackjob weakness. California Girl and Full Auto expressed intelligent posts that addressed issues. RightWinger suggested these were legitmate issues (Must be a Lib!).
Willow claimed that taxes, spending, defense, gun ownership and abortion are all just liberal talking points. Nola really said nothing at all - which seems to him operating a full capacity.

Okay thanks. You guys make it easy to see what the majority of the Tea party is like.


----------



## Sactowndog (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > The people rallied from all spectrums with one common theme.
> ...



Is it really fiscal sanity or radically downsize government.  It seems to me to be the latter because if it we fiscal sanity you would agree to some pretty reasonable revenue enhancements.  

How ever those weren't agreed to which leads me to believe the real agenda is to radically downsize government.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

Sactowndog said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



Well you know, in the OP I mentioned going to one of their parties (people were much more sane and civil there). Radically downsizing government was a big topic of discussion and although I wasn't in total agreement with them, there is a VERY legitimate point to this idea. Example: The Rural Electrification Bureau. Establish in like 1920 or something to make sure folks out in the country got that new, cool thing - electricity. Well, I think we're pretty much past that one now. But guess what? We still spend millions running this thing every year. WTF??? NPR would be another example of something I would cut funding to. 

So while I happen to disagree with some of them on dumping say, the CIA, I have to agree that we have so much redundancy and waste, there is lots of room for cuts.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Aug 9, 2011)

I think we all want fiscal sanity.  I think there are the few who want the radical fiscal approach, where as it's Main Street America that just get cut off at the knees but not Corporate America. I can't support that approach, I like a balanced approach much better.
And yes, dump Obamacare BUT run away health care cost MUST be addressed!


----------



## Too Tall (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?
> ...



I don't see any agencies on your list that I would eliminate although I do have a list.  You go first!

6. The list a government agencies you would eliminate is also quite varied. EPA? CIA? USDA? FAA? I don't find any of those UnConstitutional and although I know there is waste and inefficiency, would keep them all. I can explain my reasoning and if you disagree, guess what? That doesn't mean you're "an ignorant statists libtard socialist!" or whatever. But I'm curious as to how extensive a list you have.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> My friend asked what I thought afterward (he was obviously in recruiting mode) and I ended up on this and two other boards.
> So I'd like to get some clarification from Tea Partiers as there seems to be a lot of conflicting or even self-contradictng posts.
> 1. One poster claims the ONLY thing the TP is concerned about is the budget. I don't find this credible. What say you?
> 
> ...




Edit -  For the record,  I'm not a formal tea party member.  These views are mine.


----------



## Sactowndog (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



True but if you don't believe in any revenue increase, strong defense and a balanced budget you can get there without eliminating all or most entitlements.  Now if you are like Ron Paul and also want to cut defense you can get there and keep Medicare.  In Ron's case I would guess he wants to cut Medicare and futher cut taxes.  

So either they are delusional (which I doubt) or the agenda is to significantly reduce government and I am not talking about waste.


----------



## oreo (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> I moved to Nevada from Houston a while back. Houston is great. It is also mostly Conservative. Not Conservative like I see today but more like Reagan / Bush era Conservative. I liked that.
> So when we got here, a new friend invited me to one of these Tea Party meetings. It was actually a Tea Party in that they served tea but it might have been accurately called a Tea Soda & Beer Party. It was nice and seemed as social as political. Lots of people who knew each other and hated Obama - whom they all seemed to actually believe is both Kenyan and Muslim.
> My friend asked what I thought afterward (he was obviously in recruiting mode) and I ended up on this and two other boards.
> So I'd like to get some clarification from Tea Partiers as there seems to be a lot of conflicting or even self-contradictng posts.
> ...



I am a tea party member

1.  Yes--the majority of the tea parties primary concern is the deficit--and our run a way federal government borrowing and spending too much.
2.  We're not allowed to own WMD or Nukes in this country--so you probably made your second question up.  If you're asking about gun ownership--YES we believe in the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.
3.  The overwhelming majority of the tea party movement believe that Barack Obama is a US citizen and was born in Hawaii.
4. There are pro-life democrats--pro-life republicans--pro-life independents--and pro-life tea party members--just as there are pro-choice democrats--pro-choice republicans--pro-choice independents--and pro-choice tea party members.
5. Close the ones we no longer need.  Germany for a start--but other party members may disagree with me.
6.  Close non-essential agencies--and especially the ones that duplicate each others work.  In one group we have 16 different government funded agencies duplicating each others work.  There is so much waste in the Federal Government spending it could probably balance the budget in itself.  I imagine it's in the billions each and every month.
7.  Is not a question--it's a statement from you.
8.  Health care for the poor is already taken care of through Medicade programs.
9.  You asked--Will gay marriage make someone gay?  Answer NO.
10. Gays in the military?  Gays have been in the military for decades and it hasn't bothered anyone.-  ( I think you were trying to ask about don't ask--don't tell--LOL)
11.  Flat tax
12.  Which founding fathers was Michelle Bachmann talking about?
13.  There has never been a female conservative woman who has been so viciously attacked as Sarah Palin.  They not only went after her--but her kids too.
14.  Fox News--provides both points of view--unlike the liberal main stream media and MSNBC>  Where there's a conservative--there will be a liberal.
15.  Yes--Bush's spending didn't help--he spent 1.6 BILLION dollars a day--and Barack Obama is spending 4.3 BILLION dollars a day.
16.  I agree with enhanced interrogation procedures--and waterboarding if necessary to save innocent lives--which helped to discover the location of Osama Bin Laden.
18.  I do not believe in any corporate welfare--including Obama's favorite--General Electric who made 18.4 BILLION dollars last year and didn't pay a penny in Federal taxes on it.
19.  Yes the overwhelming majority of citizens in this country are Christians--Da duh.
20.  How about Obama disclosing the PAC money he has received from lobbyists first?  No I don't agree with them--but now you're getting hypocritical-

Did that answer all of your thumb-sucking questions?  *OF COURSE there is diversity in such a large group of people.  BUT--the main number ONE concern that we all share is fiscal responsibilty--and in that you won't find a 1/8" difference amoung us.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?
> ...



You don't decide anything!  That's your vanity and need to be stroked and I'm here to tell you you can go stroke yourself


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

Too Tall said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Sure! I have two lists. The first is what I would just plain dump, the second, I would restructure.
1:
Administrative Conference of the United States 
African Development Foundation 
Agricultural Marketing Service 
American Battle Monuments Commission 
Broadcasting Board of Governors 
Commission of Fine Arts 
Commission on International Religious Freedom 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
Federal Consulting Group (does anyone really want advice on how to run their biz from the fed???)
Federal Executive Boards 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight 
Federal Interagency Committee on Education 
Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission 
Government National Mortgage Association 
Millennium Challenge Corporation 
National Indian Gaming Commission 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
Rural Utilities Service

2. Restructure
I would put the NSA, DIA, CIA, DHS and FBI all under one roof. 
I would cut defense (in phases) by over 50%. Take 10% and put it into the intelligence services. We have a new kind of enemy now.

That would be just a start....


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

Missourian said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > My friend asked what I thought afterward (he was obviously in recruiting mode) and I ended up on this and two other boards.
> ...



Aw hell, and I was just about to compliment you for being the most direct Tea Poster I'd ever seen. Still a good post though... 

Oh, on the PACs. Bills have been presented a couple times to force Congress to reveal where they get all their money from. It's been shot down, mostly by Repubs and also by.......... Ron Paul.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



LOL! Yeah. YOU'RE informed. Of course sweetie. The Independents never decide elections. You just keep telling yourself that. 
Except the mid-terms. FOX loved repeating how Independents decided those.
Oh, and the '08 elections.
And the '06 elections.
And so on...
But it's cool! You've posted 10 times and never discussed a single issue directly. Tea Partier, right?


----------



## Mishra (Aug 9, 2011)

I'll bite. Even if this is a little biased. I'm new to this board and want to leave because the name calling is beyond ridiculous. So any real discussion is hard to find.

 I'm an independent/Ron Paul supporter by the way.

1. No, TP is worried about other things.

2. I at least want our interpretation to at least be in the same ball park. Sarbanes Oxley is about protecting investors and no power of Congress is even close to explaining how they have that power.

In a lawful sense, the constitution is meant to be interpreted by judges. However, the end all power goes to the people so they are allowed to usurp that. That means every one should be vocal and force more common sense into interpretation.

3. No

4. Debatable. I certainly wouldn't worry about it right now.

5. All. 

6. Most of these agencies could be done at the state level. No reason to give a central government that is easily corrupted that much power. 

I need a comprehensive list to give my opinion, so I have no official position on these. I would need more time to think about/talk about it/study it before I formed a true position.

7. ?

8. Not a federal government/Congress power. Could be done at the state/county/city/local/citizen level.

9. Equal rights wins.

10. Equal rights wins.

11. Needs to be done. I really like the fair tax. But same position as 6.

12. Don't care.

13. Don't care

14. Don't care

15. Every one makes mistakes so everyone in the US is at fault. 

16. Don't torture

17. Every one makes mistakes so everyone in the US is at fault. 

18. Federal government shouldn't be concerned about anything corporate wise unless it is breaking rights. You can worry about all of this at the state level.

19. Don't care

20. Get rid of a ton of federal power, worry about this later on the state level. 



IndependntLogic said:


> I moved to Nevada from Houston a while back. Houston is great. It is also mostly Conservative. Not Conservative like I see today but more like Reagan / Bush era Conservative. I liked that.
> So when we got here, a new friend invited me to one of these Tea Party meetings. It was actually a Tea Party in that they served tea but it might have been accurately called a Tea Soda & Beer Party. It was nice and seemed as social as political. Lots of people who knew each other and hated Obama - whom they all seemed to actually believe is both Kenyan and Muslim.
> My friend asked what I thought afterward (he was obviously in recruiting mode) and I ended up on this and two other boards.
> So I'd like to get some clarification from Tea Partiers as there seems to be a lot of conflicting or even self-contradictng posts.
> ...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 9, 2011)

> 2. Lots of you claim you want to return to a Constitutional government. The problem I have is that you all seem to believe that only your interpretation of the Constitution is the right one. Ex: I asked about owning a machine gun, RPG or Nuke under the 2nd Amendment. Three TP's who agreed with each other all responded. They gave three different responses and reasons why. T*hen they all claimed the USC never needs to be interpreted*.



Id like to hear a response as well, particularly the bolded. And if the Constitution need never be interpreted, how do they justify their own interpretation? And by what authority? 


> The people rallied from all spectrums with one common theme.
> 
> Fiscal sanity. That alone is the unifying quality.



Thats less edifying than saying nothing at all. 


> 1. Protect the Constitution



From whom? Or what? That makes no legal, historical, or Constitutional sense. 



> 1. This is a non-position. Obviously, you don't mean the document itself. So what I would guess you mean is your interpretation of it. This is an area that I have a problem with. It's like people trying to ram Islam down my throat. I've already got my own religion thanks.



Indeed. 


> Here. Tell ya what. You just let me know which of these issues are "Liberal":



Well, theyre all liberal. For example: 

*Spending*

More for schools and infrastructure, less for war and corporate welfare.  

*Abortion*

There is no right to an abortion, but there is a right to privacy. 
*
Military presence and spending*

Many liberals have gone libertarian, not only out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but out of Japan and Germany as well. 
*
Defense of Marriage v Gay Rights*

Marriage is in no need of defense, gays already have their rights, its a matter of getting rid of laws that violate those rights. 
*
Gun control*

A non-issue for liberals; they see _Heller/McDonald_ as settled law. Next. 

*water-boarding*

Illegal, un-Constitutional. 

*Tax subsidies and breaks*

It depends on who is being subsidized and who is getting the breaks. But for the most part they support some type of reform/simplification. 

*PAC & Lobbyist influence on government*

They understand that for the most part these enjoy First Amendment protection, and that the best way to combat both is through an informed and involved electorate.


----------



## oreo (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...




You're incorrect--independents do decide elections and right now independents are running away from Obama as fast as they can and are joining tea party groups across this nation--and we saw their power in 2010--when it looked like Custer's last stand for democrat politicians.

*In fact 40% of the tea party movement in this country consists of independents and democrats.*

Survey: Four in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or independents - The Hill's Ballot Box


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Quote from Stephanie (A Republican) on another thread:

"_We absolutely have to have the independents or we lose_, the *smart* conservatives and tea party people know this and they will act on it. We are not going to put up someone who can win the primary but lose the general,"

The italicized part is the truth. The bolded kinda leaves you out


----------



## oreo (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



100% correct.

But social conservative republicans always--inevitiably--because they are deliberately asked about their PERSONAL opinion on gay marriage--abortion, etc. turn off independents.  I doubt many will be swayed by this--but we have much bigger fish to fry--that concentrating on personal behavior that can never be changed by Washington D.C.  IOW--Washington D.C cannot legislate that everyone is straight--LOL

And if I were running for political office--I would refuse to answer questions along these lines--simply because it is "my" personal opinion--it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the crisis we are in right now-nor does it affect the majority of this nation-and it's nothing that I would be able to change anyway.

_And why Conservatives get so STUCK on social issues is beyond me.
_


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

oreo said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > I moved to Nevada from Houston a while back. Houston is great. It is also mostly Conservative. Not Conservative like I see today but more like Reagan / Bush era Conservative. I liked that.
> ...



Good post. I was not being hypocritical on Q 20. What makes you think so? Do you think I  support Obama? If so, you're wrong.  So where's the hypocrisy?

So let's discuss a bit - or would that be too juvenile? 

*Constitution*. I was using the RPG thing as an example showing that the USC needs to be interpreted. The overwhelming majority of Tea Partiers seem to think they have some kind of inside scoop on this and everyone else is wrong.
*Flat tax*. Always sounds good but how would it work?
*Bachmann.* First she said "the Founding Fathers who fought tirelessly to abolish slavery." Then just added "The FF's like John Quincy Adams who fought...". Well both of those are just plain stupid. The FF's were slave owners, slave traders, slave torturers and slave exocutioners. Oh, and JQ Adams was like 7 year old at the time so she's wrong about him being a FF too.
*Palin.* Here I disagree with you. She deserved everything she got. No doubt about it. First she dragged the fam around to exploit them. Then she took her kid's teen-age pregnancy and exploited that - the woman went out of her way to mention this often. Then she whined that the press was.... exploiting her family. Yeah okay. Fight to get in the national political spotlight and see if that, and saying a LOT of really stupid sh1t won't come and bite you on the ass. 
*Tax breaks & Subsidies*. I agree with you I think but apparently the only company you feel worth mentioning is GE who made $18B. Which I agree with, btw. But what about the GOP's oil buddies who made five times that? Feel the same way about them? I do.

In any case, it's good to see a TP who has more to offer on the issues than "You must be a Liberal for asking!". Maybe you think you guys are easy to understand but there is some confusion out here.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

oreo said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



um dude. You realize I said that Independents DO decide the elections, right? That I pointed out that we did in the last several elections - including the mid-terms? It was CrusaderFrank who claimed that Independents do not decide elections.

However, I will comment on your claim that 40% of TP's are Indies and Dems. Indies? Sure why not. Lots of former Republicans went Indie after Bush. He was a train wreck. Dems? Not. Well, okay that nice 80 year old couple from Alabama. 

Let's see: Any Dems here Tea Partiers? Of course not. The Dems have been diametrically opposed to everything the TP candidates discuss, for over 40 years.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 9, 2011)

Mishra said:


> I'll bite. Even if this is a little biased. I'm new to this board and want to leave because the name calling is beyond ridiculous. So any real discussion is hard to find.
> 
> I'm an independent/Ron Paul supporter by the way.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Thanks. Good post.


----------



## Google (Aug 9, 2011)

Threads that have less to do with the Tea Party are routinely moved, but somehow a thread entirely dedicated to the Tea Party remains in the general politics board.  Makes no sense at all.


----------



## Google (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> I moved to Nevada from Houston a while back. Houston is great. It is also mostly Conservative. Not Conservative like I see today but more like Reagan / Bush era Conservative. I liked that.
> So when we got here, a new friend invited me to one of these Tea Party meetings. It was actually a Tea Party in that they served tea but it might have been accurately called a Tea Soda & Beer Party. It was nice and seemed as social as political. Lots of people who knew each other and hated Obama - whom they all seemed to actually believe is both Kenyan and Muslim.
> My friend asked what I thought afterward (he was obviously in recruiting mode) and I ended up on this and two other boards.
> So I'd like to get some clarification from Tea Partiers as there seems to be a lot of conflicting or even self-contradictng posts.
> ...




So apparently you have a friend and attended a Tea Party event, and didn't ask any of these questions.  

Supposedly all you learned was that Tea Party people are birthers that dislike Muslims.

I don't believe anything in the OP


----------



## asterism (Aug 9, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> 1. One poster claims the ONLY thing the TP is concerned about is the budget. I don't find this credible. What say you?



I think it's the one issue the entire TP agrees on.  There's massive differences in other areas.



IndependntLogic said:


> 2. Lots of you claim you want to return to a Constitutional government. The problem I have is that you all seem to believe that only your interpretation of the Constitution is the right one. Ex: I asked about owning a machine gun, RPG or Nuke under the 2nd Amendment. Three TP's who agreed with each other all responded. They gave three different responses and reasons why. Then they all claimed the USC never needs to be interpreted. Connect those dots..



True. IMO, yes on the machine gun.  No on the RPG no on the Nuke.  Also, I think the use of the Dept. of Education, DOT, and HHS to manipulate and encroach on the states is unconstitutional.  Again just my opinion, but I think the EPA has gone way overboard.  



IndependntLogic said:


> 3. Do you believe Obama is a Kenyan? Muslim? Really?



No.


IndependntLogic said:


> 4. Would you overturn Roe v Wade?



No.



IndependntLogic said:


> 5. Would you close all our foreign military bases? Most? Some? None? THis is an area you guys seem pretty diverse on.



I'd close most of them.  I'd keep one or two in Europe, Iraq, and Japan.  I'd keep Diego Garcia and GITMO.  I'd put new ones in India and Austraila.  I'd remove the speed bump from Korea, remove most bases from Germany, Turkey, Kuwait, the UK, and Italy.



IndependntLogic said:


> 6. The list a government agencies you would eliminate is also quite varied. EPA? CIA? USDA? FAA? I don't find any of those UnConstitutional and although I know there is waste and inefficiency, would keep them all. I can explain my reasoning and if you disagree, guess what? That doesn't mean you're "an ignorant statists libtard socialist!" or whatever. But I'm curious as to how extensive a list you have.



Eliminate the Dept. of Education.  It's a beast that doesn't work.  Every function it serves is best done at the state and county level.  Eliminate the Dept. of Homeland Security.  It's an ineffective conglomerate.  The FBI and DOD are better suited.  The TSA is a complete waste, it's ineffective, inefficient, and very poorly structured for security.  If the need for security at that level is warranted, have the U.S. Marshals do it.  Scale back DOT.  It's silly to send money from local areas to Washington and then send that money back to the very same areas (with some pork manipulation).  Roads are largely local functions anyway and they are best handled locally.



IndependntLogic said:


> 7. So. Can I go get my Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher now? They had cannons back in the FF's day! How about mounting a .50 cal on my upstairs porch overlooking the street? My own personal nuke?



No, yes, no.



IndependntLogic said:


> 8. Health Care. Hmm. I think ObamaCare sucks balls. What would you do about healtch care for the poor? Anything? Nothing? Soylent Green?



Before this was a federal monopoly, local needs were funded with local dollars.  We should get back to that.  We need fewer micromanaging regulations and more regulatory oversight.  It should not be illegal to have cross-state private insurance pools.  It should not be illegal to have voluntary ad-hoc insurance pools.  We should not subsidize people who will pay $500 a month for a new car but scoff at spending $100 to visit a doctor and $13 for medication.  Health insurance should be for serious and catastrophic events, not the sniffles.  



IndependntLogic said:


> 9. Gay Marriage. Will it make you gay? Do you not care?



It's ultimately an issue of equal protection and I support it except ideally there'd be no federal involvement in marriage.



IndependntLogic said:


> 10. Gays in Military. Will our troops become sissies?



Nope.  None of the gay Marines I've served with were sissies.  That's more of a Navy thing.  



IndependntLogic said:


> 11. Taxes. Flat tax? Fair tax? Thumb tax?



FairTax.  It not only (generally) taxes income because those at higher incomes consume more, but it also taxes wealth because those with wealth but no income consume also.  It eliminates the waste built into conducting business to avoid taxes, removes the special exemptions for favored companies/industries, and it's the ultimate in transparency.



IndependntLogic said:


> 12. Do you think Michelle Bachmann was correct when she said the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to abolish slavery?



No.



IndependntLogic said:


> 13. Do you think Sarah Palin is unfairly attacked by the Media?



Yes, to a point.  However she certainly pours gasoline on that fire sometimes.



IndependntLogic said:


> 14. Do you think FOX is too liberal? Fair and unbiased? Has a Conservative agenda?



Fox definitely leans right.  The news that is covered is generally balanced, but the editorial discretion is tilted to the right.  The commentary is almost exclusively to the right, with the exception that they do have some on the left participate.  



IndependntLogic said:


> 15. Do you think any of our problems are in part, the fault of Bush?



Yes.  The fiscal problems as of 2007 are Bush's fault and he screwed us.  Pelosi and Reid added more wood to the bonfire and then Obama showed up with a flame thrower.



IndependntLogic said:


> 16. How about that water-boarding!



An excellent tool for interrogating a hardened target.  How about that IRS audit?    Guess which I would rather do again?



IndependntLogic said:


> 17. Was the debt ceiling thing all the Dems fault?



No.  The Republicans caved.



IndependntLogic said:


> 18. Do you think Job Creators like Big Oil and MNE's should get special tax breaks or subsidies that other companies do not? Why?



No.  See the answer to question 11.



IndependntLogic said:


> 19. Is America a Christian Nation? What does that mean?



The United States is mostly a Christian Nation with a secular government.  The general culture is based in Christianity.  I don't think the culture is something the government needs to be involved in.  We have freedom of religion.



IndependntLogic said:


> 20. How about PAC and lobbyist contributions? Keep em secret?



No.  No campaign contributions should be secret.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 10, 2011)

Google said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > I moved to Nevada from Houston a while back. Houston is great. It is also mostly Conservative. Not Conservative like I see today but more like Reagan / Bush era Conservative. I liked that.
> ...



Well you came in late so rather than call you names or whatever, I'll just let you know that this has already been covered earlier. 
Among the things they discussed were out of control spending, what is Constitutional and reducing government. I mentioned these in points 1 & 2 and thought I made it clear these were common threads but reiterated this later. 
I asked about these things but everyone else there knew each other very well and I was an outsider, so I didn't want to press. Especially given that there was a moment of awkward silence when I said I disagreed with a guy on his interpretation of the USC when it came to what was meant by provide for the general welfare (I'm okay with the existence of the EPA -Gasp!). 
Fortunately, they weren't overtly hostile or offended that someone might have differing opinions and not just agree with them on every single issue.


----------



## asterism (Aug 10, 2011)

Any comments on my responses, IL?


----------



## Too Tall (Aug 10, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



I agree completely with your list.  I would go a lot further tho'.  Eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy and put the Department of Veterans Affairs under the Defense Department.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Aug 10, 2011)

*Questions for Tea Partiers*

*

*Where's Snooki Palin's* 
*High School Diploma**?*


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 10, 2011)

asterism said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. One poster claims the ONLY thing the TP is concerned about is the budget. I don't find this credible. What say you?
> ...



Another great post. Civil and addressed the issues! Thanxabunch. Are you a Tea Partier? 
After the first several posts by Soggy in NOLA & CrusaderFrank, I was beginning to think the TP was filled with nothing but angry whackjobs who were clueless on the issues. However, the more I read post like this one, the more I begin to appreciate what the TP has to offer.


----------



## asterism (Aug 10, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



I'm a Tea Party voter when it makes sense and I financially support certain targeted tea party candidates.  I've never attended the rallies, they are too much "rah rah go team" for my tastes.  But holding the line on spending is a good thing in my opinion.

You don't have to agree with all of my views, but  it would be nice if more people were like you and actually listened instead of just shouting "Faux News!" for "Koch brothers!"  I'd like the people like Bodecea to realize that I'm an ally and not an enemy, but some people are too far gone into their identity politics.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 11, 2011)

asterism said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


----------



## Indy Terry (Aug 11, 2011)

I truly believe that the greatest threat from the Tea Party is they will ultimately push this country into similar riots to what is happening in London and other English cities. Prime Minister Cameron came out today while addressing Parliament that "gangs" were a major force of the rioting. He also cited the association between English gangs and a Boston gang. This country is certainly not short of gang/drug violence and influence.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 11, 2011)

Indy Terry said:


> I truly believe that the greatest threat from the Tea Party is they will ultimately push this country into similar riots to what is happening in London and other English cities. Prime Minister Cameron came out today while addressing Parliament that "gangs" were a major force of the rioting. He also cited the association between English gangs and a Boston gang. This country is certainly not short of gang/drug violence and influence.



Okay I'll bite. _How_ are they going to do it?


----------



## asterism (Aug 11, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Tea Party voter when it makes sense and I financially support certain targeted tea party candidates.  I've never attended the rallies, they are too much "rah rah go team" for my tastes.  But holding the line on spending is a good thing in my opinion.
> ...



That's a good perspective.



IndependntLogic said:


> So now that I've gotten all long-winded and such, let me challenge you and any other Tpers a bit. Two questions:
> 
> 1. What if we eliminate say, the EPA and assign it to the states. And what if a state is broke?



They are ultimately responsible for their own affairs with oversight from the federal government.  The issue isn't the EPA rules, it's the bureaucracy.  It's a crime to pollute water.  That's a DOJ function.  In many cases the states already have their own environmental restrictions and enforcement mechanism.  I'm not suggesting we do away with the concept of federal and state oversight, just get rid of the duplication and massive arbitrary enforcement mechanisms that don't really manage to protect much at all.  It does not take a federal employee to oversee each and every Environmental Impact Study that has already been proven to comply with more stringent state requirements.



IndependntLogic said:


> 2. I've lived in Detroit and Houston. In Detroit, if you want to know who owns the politician, just look in the executive offices of the Big Three Automakers. In Texas, if you want to know who has bought and paid for the politicians, just drive out to Stafford, Sugar Land or downtown to the exec offices of the Big Oil companies.
> So do you really trust the politicians who are owned by these companies, to set the environmental laws that "Provide for the General Welfare"? I mean, by making it national, you have someone in Montana or Iowa or whatever looking at the standards as well. I prefer that. What say you?



I think it just replaces one "owner" with another.  There was a Home Depot proposed on a site that sits on the headwaters of a creek that flows into the St. John's river in Jacksonville.  It was denied due to the environmental impact.  The site was already developed but the EPA blocked building the actual store.  There's a Whole Foods there now.  How did they get permission?  They gave money to environmental groups and that "mitigated" the damage.  As a bonus, they got to build a store on a developed piece of property that was virtually worthless at the time.  

Diane Feinstein was personally involved in this.  So you have a California politician picking the winners and losers for a Florida business.  If this is the system we have to accept, I'd rather it be as local as possible.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 11, 2011)

asterism said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 11, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?
> ...



They won't answer your questions (not even the most superficial ones).  They won't even try.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 11, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > I moved to Nevada from Houston a while back. Houston is great. It is also mostly Conservative. Not Conservative like I see today but more like Reagan / Bush era Conservative. I liked that.
> ...



Like refusing to raise the debt ceiling and trashing our economy even worse than the compromise?

Real fiscal sanity there.


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 11, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> See why I have no patience for Independents or Moderates?



I know. You cons live on soundbites. Actually having to think about something - in depth - is anathema to what you are....

All of IL questions are relevant and worth discussing....if you have an IQ over 50....


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 11, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> No, you don't "get it". If you did you would have presented your list of questions in an adult manner instead of this Internet drama fashion.



WTF? You reading the same list? Get over your petty self...Oh, that's right, you must be a TPartier....skin so transaprent we can see the cold blood in your veins..


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 11, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > No, you don't "get it". If you did you would have presented your list of questions in an adult manner instead of this Internet drama fashion.
> ...



Not all the TPers or Conservs dodge, insult, change the subject or Cut & Run like bigfoot, CursaderFrank or Soggy in Nola. There have already been a lot of great replies from other TPers here.


----------



## asterism (Aug 12, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Okay, so we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this one. There is no way in hell I would trust the local politicians in MI to regulate or oversee the environment there. THat was pretty much the situation in the 50's, 60's and into the 70's. What regulation and oversight occured? None. It wasn't until some danm Liberals from other states, as well as Canada made a huge fuss that the damage by the Big Three was ever challenged. By then, the joke was that you could walk across Lake Erie without ever getting wet. Just about every form of life in the Rouge River was dead. And for thirty years, there was no one from the state to report it to the Fed. When they finally did, it was determined that the state legislature had eliminated all that nasty, liberal, unnecessary government regulation to such a point, that none of the auto manufacturers was found guilty of committing a single crime.
> And trust Texas politicians to set the standards, regulations for say Gulf rig valves for example? To never look the other way? Not while I have a vote on it.
> 
> Your example is good and I've never been a big fan of Feinstein anyway. So although I'm sure there are lots of examples like the one you made, there are also ones like mine.
> ...



Those are fine examples of what can and should be avoided.  I agree with you on nuclear power and that is a case where there is huge potential danger and a huge potential benefit.  I don't think it's an either/or comparison of "get rid of the NRC" or not, and the functions served by the NRC at a federal level do not in itself mandate the rest of the EPA waste (not valid functions that the EPA serves, the bureaucratic waste part of it).

So much of the debate about the size and scope of the federal government usually arises out of mischaracterization and inflamed rhetoric.  One side assumes that since those in favor of getting rid of the EPA as a huge bureaucracy, that automatically means they want to set the Cuyahoga River on fire again.  Then the other side says that since they don't want that to be possible anymore that means they want to outlaw any and all manufacturing.  That said, there are extremes who want exactly that.  

You and I are neither in this discussion, and most people are actually reasonable.  

Going back to your original stated intent of this thread, the TP generally agrees that the size, influence, and procedures of the government has gone too far.  Of course they look extreme when the debate is framed from a position that automatically assumes that government size MUST increase, that the government budget MUST increase, that regulations and micromanagement MUST increase, and that anyone who wants to shrink it at all are simply advocating anarchy.

The reality is that there is a way to do this stuff effectively and nobody gets everything they want.


----------



## ConCap (Sep 4, 2011)

1. One poster claims the ONLY thing the TP is concerned about is the budget. I don't find this credible. What say you?

1.  Section 8, Article I and nothing more.



2. Lots of you claim you want to return to a Constitutional government. The problem I have is that you all seem to believe that only your interpretation of the Constitution is the right one. Ex: I asked about owning a machine gun, RPG or Nuke under the 2nd Amendment. Three TP's who agreed with each other all responded. They gave three different responses and reasons why. Then they all claimed the USC never needs to be interpreted. Connect those dots..

2.  The TP&#8217;s that responded were not true TP members.  True TP members do not interpret the Constitution.  They except the Constitution as written. 



3. Do you believe Obama is a Kenyan? Muslim? Really?

3. At this point it is irrelevant and does not matter no matter who you are.



4. Would you overturn Roe v Wade?

4.  Yes.  It is a social matter injected in to the Federal level of  government to split votes.
      This matter should be advocated on a state, local and personal level.



5. Would you close all our foreign military bases? Most? Some? None? This is an area you guys seem pretty diverse on.

5.  Speaking as a 20 yr retired combat vet.  Yes.  The military was intended for the defense of the people of the United States and it&#8216;s boarders.  The winning of the harts and minds should be left up the State Department.



6. The list a government agencies you would eliminate is also quite varied. EPA? CIA? USDA? FAA? I don't find any of those Un Constitutional and although I know there is waste and inefficiency, would keep them all. I can explain my reasoning and if you disagree, guess what? That doesn't mean you're "an ignorant statists libtard socialist!" or whatever. But I'm curious as to how extensive a list you have.

6.  Section 8, Article I and nothing more.



7. So. Can I go get my Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher now? 
Only if you are properly licensed to do so.  Other wise it against the law.

They had cannons back in the FF's day!
You can own a black powder front loaded cannon today as well in all most all 50 states.  As long as you do not use it in the commission of a crime you should be ok.   Check first. 

How about mounting a .50 cal on my upstairs porch overlooking the street?
If you are properly lessoned and it is not against the law in your state or against your local ordnance to brandish a weapon, just having one on your front porch to send a message should be no problem.   Check first  

My own personal nuke?   
With or with out delivery system?
Again, if you are licensed and can properly maintain the ordnance in accordance with all regulations and do not use it in the commission of a crime, go for it.   Check first



8. Health Care. Hmm. I think Obama Care sucks balls. What would you do about health care for the poor? Anything? Nothing? Soylent Green?

8.  Health care is a State, local and personal level social issue.
Section 8, Article I and nothing more.
Can you say Romney care?  This is OK.  How ever I would move or get it changed.



9. Gay Marriage. Will it make you gay? Do you not care?

9.  Gay Marriage is a State, local and personal level social issue.
Section 8, Article I and nothing more.



10. Gays in Military. Will our troops become sissies? 

10.  There have always been Gays in the Military.



11. Taxes. Flat tax? Fair tax? Thumb tax?

11.  Fair tax.
Rich, poor, male, female all should pay taxes.  The richer you are, the more you buy and the more you taxes you pay.  The poorer you are, the less you buy and the less taxes you pay.
If you are to poor to buy any thing, than you should  seek assistance from friends, Church, local government or State Government in that order.  If you live in a place that has none of these move to a state that does.  In the U.S. you are free to do this.



12. Do you think Michelle Bachmann was correct when she said the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to abolish slavery?

12.  The very first Constitutional compromise was over slavery.  It was wrong then and every Constitutional compromise after that is why we are in the mess we are in now.



13. Do you think Sarah Palin is unfairly attacked by the Media?

13.  If it&#8217;s true, how can it be unfair.  If it&#8217;s not than that is malice and against the law and should be dealt with according to the law. 



14. Do you think FOX is too liberal? Fair and unbiased? Has a Conservative agenda?

14.  That a personal issue.  News is in the ear of the hearer.
I watch Fox for the same reason I vote.  They best represent my personal beliefs just as the right best represents my Constitutional issues.



15. Do you think any of our problems are in part, the fault of Bush?

15.  Yes!  But mostly Conservatives in general.
EVERY FREEDOM LOST IN THE LAST 100YRS WAS COMPROMISED AWAY BY THE REPUBLICANS AND THE LAST 60YRS BY A CONSERVATIVE.



16. How about that water-boarding!

16.  How about an electric drill into your knee cap?
I say if you are fighting an enemy that follows ALL of the rules so should you.



17. Was the debt ceiling thing all the Dems fault?

17.  It is the fault of all voters, left and right who advocate there personal social issues on a Federal level instead of the State and local level where the Constitution intended them to be.



18. Do you think Job Creators like Big Oil and MNE's should get special tax breaks or subsidies that other companies do not? Why?

18.  No!  if the Federal Government only carried out the duties described in Section 8, Article I and nothing more, their would be no need for at least 75% of taxes collected today.  The rest would come from duties like they did in the beginning.



19. Is America a Christian Nation? What does that mean?

19.  At the time, it was a nation made up of mostly Christians.  The Constitution was written for people of  a high moral caliber not for Christians.  How ever, if you feel you can&#8217;t be moral with out being religious go for it.



20. How about PAC and lobbyist contributions? Keep em secret?

20.  If the Federal Government limited it&#8217;s duties to Section 8, Article I and nothing more, there would be no PAC&#8217;s and lobbyist.


I'm not a Tea Paryt member.

Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann!

This is as close to a Constitutional (&#8220;A&#8221; Political) ticket as you can get at this time and that&#8217;s what the movement is all about.
Until they are eliminated in the primaries, this is should be the
ONLY TICKET BACKED BY TPN AT THIS TIME.

There are as many Conservatives as there are people.
Every one is trying to conserve what they believe in through politics, left or right.
Being part of the Tea Party movement makes you a Constitutionalist.
Being a Constitutionalist makes you conservative, (&#8220;A&#8221; Political) not a Conservative.
You can&#8217;t just call your self a generic &#8220;Conservative&#8221; and be in the Tea Party movement, you must call your self a Constitutional Conservative ( No social issues on a Federal level ) and differentiate your self from the other so called Conservatives that have compromised away all of our lost freedoms in the last 60 years.

The water in the OB political toilet has started swirl.
Frankly, no one on TPN has any idea what the state of the Union will be at the time of the election. If it&#8217;s really gets worse, may be even the county dog catcher would have a good chance. Every one on the not elect able train, needs to stop with the &#8220;Who can and can&#8217;t beat OB at this time and back the ticket that best represents the Constitution.

The left is all so backing Parry at this time, that&#8217;s why he is ahead in the polls.
(can you say McCain)
They know he would have a hard time beating OB.
They all so know that Romney would revert back to a moderate after the primaries and win.

In the primaries:
At this time, in the end I think it will be Parry because that&#8217;s what the left wants.
The RINO&#8217;s are pushing for Romney.
The &#8220;Conservatives&#8221; hiding in the Tea Party movement are siding with the left and backing Parry because they think all the Constitutional Conservatives are un elect able.
The true Constitutional Conservatives in the movement will vote for who best represents the Constitution in the primaries, regardless of elect ability.


----------

