Should the Tea Party be for Whites only?

[eflatminor]

If we can manage to move this party forward...

Let me see if I have this straight. You want Republicans to act and vote more like Democrats so they can win more elections with Republicans acting and voting like Democrats.

Um...yea, pass.

You want to get the Republican base out in full force at election time, which has been proven time and time again to be the only way to win? Then start acting like Republicans.

No I want the Republican party to stop acting like idiots.

Seeking to live within our means is idiotic? Hmm...

Maintain our same fiscal policies that help business owners and tax payers, but get off the crazy social issues.

The only fiscal policies the help business owners and tax payers are those that government the fuck out of the way. If that's the kind of policies you're talking about, we're on the same page.

What "crazy social issues" are you talking about? As a libertarian, I do not support the RINOs ideas that they know what's best for everyone else. I support free markets and free minds. But we're talking fiscal issues here.

Worry about actual problems, and stop making the rest of us look dumb. Stop shutting down the government and act like you know what you are doing.

If shutting down the government is the only tool that Congress has to reign in spending, then they should use it. And nobody shut down government! Besides, why in the fuck does government have "non essential" employees anyway? Who employs someone that isn't essential?!

If government were spending reasonably and making even a modicum of effort to live within the confines of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, then no one would need to threaten shutdown. But as we all know, that's FAR from the case.

Why are we still fighting gay marriage?

Shouldn't be. Government need not be involved in anyone's personal relationship.

Why are we still arguing abortion (It was 40 years ago)? Why are you saying women don't have contraception rights?

Because the Constitution gives no power to the Federal government to regulate abortion. It's a state issue. Personally, I would no sooner try to stop a woman from obtaining an abortion than I would stop someone from using drugs, assume we're talking about adults.

But again, we're talking fiscal issues.

Get with the picture, it is almost 2014.

Oh good God, you REALLY sound like a Progressive when you use "modern times" argument. Mentioning the date does NOT improve your position.

Go back to the days where we worked with democrats to pass welfare reform, healthcare reform, debt crisis, etc.

Yet we continue to spend more and more on entitlements. Your reform didn't work. A different approach is called for.

Our conservative idol Ronald Reagan did all of this, and I don't hear any of you calling him a RINO.

Reagan may have talked a good limited government game, but he spent like a RINO. And I will NEVER forgive him for signing that bullshit gun ban. Sorry, I'm no Reagan fan.

Sad thing is, if he was around today, passing the same policies as he did in the 80's, you would be saying that...

If he was spending beyond our means and restricting the rights of law abiding citizens, damn right. Of course, what he spent was a pittance compared to the central planners that we're dealing with today. So yea, I'd take Reagan over Obama (or Bush) any day.

Look, I agree with you regarding social issues but that's not what's sinking the economy. Fiscal issues must be addressed and suggesting the Republicans act more like Democrats or engage in more 'compromise' is not going to fix the situation. We've had 100 years of Progressive compromise from both sides of the isle and all have to show for it is an ENORMOUS entitlement mentality and debt approaching $20 trillion.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Let me see if I have this straight. You want Republicans to act and vote more like Democrats so they can win more elections with Republicans acting and voting like Democrats.

Um...yea, pass.

You want to get the Republican base out in full force at election time, which has been proven time and time again to be the only way to win? Then start acting like Republicans.

No I want the Republican party to stop acting like idiots.

Seeking to live within our means is idiotic? Hmm...



The only fiscal policies the help business owners and tax payers are those that government the fuck out of the way. If that's the kind of policies you're talking about, we're on the same page.

What "crazy social issues" are you talking about? As a libertarian, I do not support the RINOs ideas that they know what's best for everyone else. I support free markets and free minds. But we're talking fiscal issues here.



If shutting down the government is the only tool that Congress has to reign in spending, then they should use it. And nobody shut down government! Besides, why in the fuck does government have "non essential" employees anyway? Who employs someone that isn't essential?!

If government were spending reasonably and making even a modicum of effort to live within the confines of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, then no one would need to threaten shutdown. But as we all know, that's FAR from the case.



Shouldn't be. Government need not be involved in anyone's personal relationship.



Because the Constitution gives no power to the Federal government to regulate abortion. It's a state issue. Personally, I would no sooner try to stop a woman from obtaining an abortion than I would stop someone from using drugs, assume we're talking about adults.

But again, we're talking fiscal issues.



Oh good God, you REALLY sound like a Progressive when you use "modern times" argument. Mentioning the date does NOT improve your position.



Yet we continue to spend more and more on entitlements. Your reform didn't work. A different approach is called for.

Our conservative idol Ronald Reagan did all of this, and I don't hear any of you calling him a RINO.

Reagan may have talked a good limited government game, but he spent like a RINO. And I will NEVER forgive him for signing that bullshit gun ban. Sorry, I'm no Reagan fan.

Sad thing is, if he was around today, passing the same policies as he did in the 80's, you would be saying that...

If he was spending beyond our means and restricting the rights of law abiding citizens, damn right. Of course, what he spent was a pittance compared to the central planners that we're dealing with today. So yea, I'd take Reagan over Obama (or Bush) any day.

Look, I agree with you regarding social issues but that's not what's sinking the economy. Fiscal issues must be addressed and suggesting the Republicans act more like Democrats or engage in more 'compromise' is not going to fix the situation. We've had 100 years of Progressive compromise from both sides of the isle and all have to show for it is an ENORMOUS entitlement mentality and debt approaching $20 trillion.

I believe that it is our lack of progressing in social issues that restricts repubs from getting elected. Romney faced this problem in the last election, and if he was elected I cannot say for sure that our issues would be less severe, but it's hard to see it being worse.

When I say compromise, I mean the way Clinton and Gingrich were able to balance the budget in the 90's. The corporate tax rate was reasonable and the economy was doing well. I understand what you are saying about Reagan, but imagine if he didn't spend what he did on defense? Our debt would't have inflated so high, and his policies would be, in my eyes, perfect. The fact is, when we can't agree, and are willing to jump before we grab the other guys hand, we aren't doing anything to help this country. We need to reign in spending, but defaulting on our bills won't help us do that. We need to raise the ceiling and start to look at the things we need and the things that we don't. Going bankrupt isn't necessary to do that. Government employees get a lot of extras that the rest of us don't, and they need to step back, realize that they lived well for a long time, and start putting in the hard times like the rest of us.

I am 22. Ill never see social security, Ill never see medicare, I will never see retirement before 75, and I am ok with that. I need to be, I have no other choice. But, I do want my kids to be able to have a future. The Baby Boomers really made a mess of things, and it is me and my contemporaries job to break out the mop. It wont be easy, but maybe we need to reexamine the countries that we give billions to like Israel, maybe we need to look at entitlements under a different lens, maybe we need to start placing tariffs on companies who ship out manufacturing overseas. A lot needs to be done, and the government needs to do a lot of it. Don't get me wrong, they need to step out of the way on a lot of things, but we need a central post that dictates measures to ensure that my children have a future.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you will see Social Security and the rest. Stop the hysterics.

Should the Tea Party be for Whites only?

Of course not.

 

[eflatminor]

I believe that it is our lack of progressing in social issues that restricts repubs from getting elected.

I would agree it hasn't helped, but I think fiscal issues are so much more important for anyone that would possibly vote R, that it is there we must focus. And to me and many others, the Republicans have failed miserably in reigning in spending and government growth, which is why we see the rise of true conservatives like Lee, Cruz, Paul, etc.

Romney faced this problem in the last election

I disagree. Romney's problem was that he didn't excite the base enough to get off their ass and go to the polls. They saw him as just another RINO who wasn't going to do shit to reverse the trend of big government.

, and if he was elected I cannot say for sure that our issues would be less severe, but it's hard to see it being worse.

Agreed

When I say compromise, I mean the way Clinton and Gingrich were able to balance the budget in the 90's.

My sister, who's not too bright, could have balanced the budget in what was the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world. If government can't live within it's means with that kind of revenue, it never will. And even then, they only did it for one year and many would argue it required the use of accounting trickery to show a surplus.

Either way, all attempts to compromise have left us with the debt we face. The time for compromise is over. Spending CUTS (actual cuts, not a slight decrease in the planned increase rate of spending) are called for. We must ELIMINATE government agencies that do more harm than good and reverse the trend that is making America an entitlement nation. Compromise with the Progressives will not achieve these desperately needed steps. They've only proven to worsen the situation.

The corporate tax rate was reasonable and the economy was doing well. I understand what you are saying about Reagan, but imagine if he didn't spend what he did on defense? Our debt would't have inflated so high, and his policies would be, in my eyes, perfect. The fact is, when we can't agree, and are willing to jump before we grab the other guys hand, we aren't doing anything to help this country. We need to reign in spending, but defaulting on our bills won't help us do that.

We're not going to default. The debt payments will be made if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

Unfortunately, I fully expect the Republicans to cave and allow for even more spending. This is their history.

We need to raise the ceiling and start to look at the things we need and the things that we don't.

Problem is, those "things we don't need" never get identified, much less cut. The Congressional power of the purse is the ONLY thing they have to force spending cuts. I don't understand why you want to relinquish that power to the executive and Progressives.

Going bankrupt isn't necessary to do that.

Again, nobody's going bankrupt. We bring in over 10 times the revenue necessary to make the debt payments.

Government employees get a lot of extras that the rest of us don't, and they need to step back, realize that they lived well for a long time, and start putting in the hard times like the rest of us.

I would argue we don't need but a fraction of the government employees we have. CERTAINLY not the 'non essential' ones!

If government lived within the confines of the enumerated powers in the Constitution, we'd never hire all these people in the first place...and we wouldn't need an income tax.

A lot needs to be done, and the government needs to do a lot of it.

Nope. The government needs to get out of the way.

Don't get me wrong, they need to step out of the way on a lot of things, but we need a central post that dictates measures to ensure that my children have a future.

May I suggest you ready Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Stossel, etc. The only central post we need are those powers previously enumerated. Were that the case, it would be up to you to ensure your children's future, and I have no doubt you would prevail in that regard. Do not rely on central planners. They always do more harm than good.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Yes, you will see Social Security and the rest. Stop the hysterics.

Should the Tea Party be for Whites only?

Of course not.

Who will see Social Security? Not me..

 

[YoungRepublican]

I believe that it is our lack of progressing in social issues that restricts repubs from getting elected.

I would agree it hasn't helped, but I think fiscal issues are so much more important for anyone that would possibly vote R, that it is there we must focus. And to me and many others, the Republicans have failed miserably in reigning in spending and government growth, which is why we see the rise of true conservatives like Lee, Cruz, Paul, etc.

Romney faced this problem in the last election

I disagree. Romney's problem was that he didn't excite the base enough to get off their ass and go to the polls. They saw him as just another RINO who wasn't going to do shit to reverse the trend of big government.



Agreed



My sister, who's not too bright, could have balanced the budget in what was the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world. If government can't live within it's means with that kind of revenue, it never will. And even then, they only did it for one year and many would argue it required the use of accounting trickery to show a surplus.

Either way, all attempts to compromise have left us with the debt we face. The time for compromise is over. Spending CUTS (actual cuts, not a slight decrease in the planned increase rate of spending) are called for. We must ELIMINATE government agencies that do more harm than good and reverse the trend that is making America an entitlement nation. Compromise with the Progressives will not achieve these desperately needed steps. They've only proven to worsen the situation.



We're not going to default. The debt payments will be made if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

Unfortunately, I fully expect the Republicans to cave and allow for even more spending. This is their history.



Problem is, those "things we don't need" never get identified, much less cut. The Congressional power of the purse is the ONLY thing they have to force spending cuts. I don't understand why you want to relinquish that power to the executive and Progressives.



Again, nobody's going bankrupt. We bring in over 10 times the revenue necessary to make the debt payments.



I would argue we don't need but a fraction of the government employees we have. CERTAINLY not the 'non essential' ones!

If government lived within the confines of the enumerated powers in the Constitution, we'd never hire all these people in the first place...and we wouldn't need an income tax.

A lot needs to be done, and the government needs to do a lot of it.

Nope. The government needs to get out of the way.

Don't get me wrong, they need to step out of the way on a lot of things, but we need a central post that dictates measures to ensure that my children have a future.

May I suggest you ready Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Stossel, etc. The only central post we need are those powers previously enumerated. Were that the case, it would be up to you to ensure your children's future, and I have no doubt you would prevail in that regard. Do not rely on central planners. They always do more harm than good.

I agree with a lot of the things that you are saying, but I disagree with a lot of things too. I like the idea of the empowered citizens, but not all citizens are like you and I. Some people need a kick in the bum to get on their feet. It is why we have the govt. to get people to get on their feet.

I believe that the base was so afraid of Obama that they got off their ass to vote, considering the large proportion of white men and women that voted for Romney, however, he lost so poorly among youngins and minorities and moderates that the only answer I can come up with for his loss was his lack of relation to moderates.

The GOP needs to get back to the way it was. a rational, fiscally responsible organization who focuses on getting business back on its feet. I want that GOP, not this. This isn't the way we win over people and votes.

 

[peach174]

Yes, you will see Social Security and the rest. Stop the hysterics.

Should the Tea Party be for Whites only?

Of course not.

Who will see Social Security? Not me..

Yes it will be there. As long as we have workers it will continue.
It's the automatic cuts that will kick in if nothing is done to fix it and you will maybe get 200.00 a month, but you will still get it.

 

[eflatminor]

I agree with a lot of the things that you are saying,

Cool!

but I disagree with a lot of things too.

Then I hope you will articulate those disagreements with specificity.

I like the idea of the empowered citizens, but not all citizens are like you and I. Some people need a kick in the bum to get on their feet. It is why we have the govt. to get people to get on their feet.

That sounds like you're suggesting government involvement based on INTENTIONS (getting people to get on their feet) when the REALITY of that involvement has been exactly the opposite (keeping people dependent).

Take a look at my avatar and the wise words of Uncle Milty!

I believe that the base was so afraid of Obama that they got off their ass to vote, considering the large proportion of white men and women that voted for Romney, however, he lost so poorly among youngins and minorities and moderates that the only answer I can come up with for his loss was his lack of relation to moderates.

You know, Obama actually got fewer votes in '12 compared to '08. Polling indicates that it was the Republican base (and libertarian leaning folks) that couldn't bring themselves to vote for Romney. He got fewer of those votes than even big government McCain!

The GOP needs to get back to the way it was. a rational, fiscally responsible organization who focuses on getting business back on its feet. I want that GOP, not this. This isn't the way we win over people and votes

I understand those words, but I would argue more compromise isn't the way to do that.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the GOP. I care about freedom. I care about free minds and free markets. I care about the Constitution and the ideals of limited government it contains. I'd vote for any one in any party that stood for those ideals. With a few exceptions, I haven't seen that from Republicans in at least 100 years.

Okay, here's a straight forward question: Do you like Rand Paul? Would you vote for him as a Republican running for President? I admit, he's my favorite R, by a long shot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The fact is the TPM is rotten to the core with reactionary let's go back to the fifties it was so great.

The GOP's base is mainstream middle of the road Republicans who have awakened to the fact that the TPM gangsters have tried, and failed, to hijack the GOP.

Thank heavens.

^ the official OFA Party line

OFA pays Jake 25 cents every time he uses the word "reactionary"

 

[daveman]

You sure as hell aren't the first old person to tell the younins to go back to the way it was. Funny thing is, if conservatives of the 80's were up on stage today they would be laughed off of the stage by those Tea Party try-hards claiming that they are RINO's. Remember when the solider got on the screen in the primary and commended the repeal of don't ask, Don't tell and he was booed? Who do you think it was booing the solider putting his life on the line for you and I, just because he was gay? It sure wasn't the moderate Republican's in the room. It was those hard-line cons who make the entire party look bad. Have you ever studied Reagan's politics, or Nixon's or even Eisenhower? Those guys were REAL Republican's and they look nothing like the fools that I see post on this board claiming to be "true conservatives". We really need to think about who the real RINO's are in today's GOP.

Here is the deal. We have to types of people in the GOP today. In one corner, we have the elderly, poorly informed, southerners, etc., all of whom wish to turn the party into a this radical conservative movement that looks nothing like the GOP of old. In the other corner we have a group of 30 and under millennial who want to have a party to look for that will provide economic relief from the mountains of debt that we are currently facing. We want our party to have appeal to moderates and youth and minorities so that we can win another major election. We want to get over abortion, we want to allow gays to marry, we want to recognize that we have a gun problem in our inner-cities and we want to address these issues. Who do you think is going to win this fight? Once we lose a few more elections and everyone in our party sees how much damage the tea party has done to our credibility with the majority of America, they will be forced out. The upcoming congressional election will show you what America really thinks of the Tea Party, but you still won't get it. After we lose enough elections and our party is crippled to the point that fixing it is almost impossible, perhaps then you will be happy. I and my "know it all youngins" are going to do something about it though, we wont go down without a fight. We are going to move this party forward and adapt to the changing landscape of America, either you are with us or you're against us, but you can't be both.

Boy, mindless repetition of progressive talking points is less than compelling.

And a failure to acknowledge important issues that are destroying America is indicative of the stupid.

You misspelled "the progressive agenda".

Destroying which, of course, would be GOOD for America.

 

[daveman]

You should pick a more honest username, kid. You're no more Republican than Fake Starkey.

Funny thing is, when I chose this username, I thought that I would be agreeing with other Republicans on this site as we tried to convince Democrats that our party is on the up-swing and we were going to start reclaiming this country. Then when I started to post and read what other "Republicans" had to say, I realized that my time on this board was destined for other adventures. I call it "A Young Republican's quest to save a party, and enlighten the lost", it is really a good read. It is about this 22 year old Republican who has spent his young life explaining conservative concepts to other kids who don't have interest in politics and to get them to become involved. He went to college and he founded his schools first ever Young Republicans Club. He battled professors in his political science classes with the intelligence he gathered on topics, and sound reasoning. Then he interned for the Romney Campaign in Northeast Pennsylvania where he got his first taste of ignorance. It was here where his naive ideals on hard-line conservative's disappeared. He would knock on doors and ask who people were planning on voting for, and would be forced to sit and listen to why these people "Would never vote for that n****", and have to smile and nod. This is where the story gets good, because as the months went on he lost more and more patience with the ignorant, he realized why the party he was working so hard for was failing. The story is still in it's early stages. Currently he is in Law School in Chicago, and has a little free time on his hands with his girlfriend out of town, so he went back on to a political message board, and he is trying to get the unintelligent and ignorant to realize that they are making this party virtually impossible to relate with for youths, minorities, moderates and any one else with half an interest in sensible politics. So here he is, confused and angry, just waiting for the next idiot to post something about Obama being from Kenya, or Ben Carson being a viable Republican candidate in 2016 so that he can just maybe enlighten some of these misguided radicals into leaving the GOP and forming their own party to get a couple thousand of votes every election, kind of like the libertarians.

excellent post. Too bad more Repub voters on this site don't possess critical thinking skills like you.

YR, if Dottie agrees with you, that means you're flat-out wrong.

 

[daveman]

Yes, you will see Social Security and the rest. Stop the hysterics.

Should the Tea Party be for Whites only?

Of course not.

Who will see Social Security? Not me..

Not if Democrats continue spending unchecked.

 

[Unkotare]

should they be for Whites only or should they also allow in non-White people, like blacks and Chinese?

Why would such a ridiculous question even occur to you? That particular political movement is not based on race.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you will see Social Security and the rest. Stop the hysterics.

Should the Tea Party be for Whites only?

Of course not.

Who will see Social Security? Not me..

Not if Democrats continue spending unchecked.

I agree that spending needs to be checked.

Reform entitlements and downsize DoD.

 

[Unkotare]

I understand what you are saying about Reagan, but imagine if he didn't spend what he did on defense?

The Soviet Union wouldn't have collapsed when it did (or perhaps at all). Who knows what consequences that could have carried?

 

[daveman]

Who will see Social Security? Not me..

Not if Democrats continue spending unchecked.

I agree that spending needs to be checked.

Reform entitlements and downsize DoD.

That's a start.

 

[daveman]

I understand what you are saying about Reagan, but imagine if he didn't spend what he did on defense?

The Soviet Union wouldn't have collapsed when it did (or perhaps at all). Who knows what consequences that could have carried?

It would have given progressives a more modern model of the America they want.

 

[Unkotare]

Not if Democrats continue spending unchecked.

I agree that spending needs to be checked.

Reform entitlements and downsize DoD.

That's a start.

Reform entitlements and we won't need to downsize the Dept. of Defense (which is a terrible idea, regardless).

 

[daveman]

I agree that spending needs to be checked.

Reform entitlements and downsize DoD.

That's a start.

Reform entitlements and we won't need to downsize the Dept. of Defense (which is a terrible idea, regardless).

Speaking as a veteran, yes, there is some fat that could be trimmed. And the procurement process is colossally effed up. It wastes billions of dollars -- especially when Congress insists the military buy weapons systems they don't want or need.

Brand-New Air Force Planes Dumped at Tucson Boneyard | The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch | Tucson Weekly

 

[Unkotare]

That's a start.

Reform entitlements and we won't need to downsize the Dept. of Defense (which is a terrible idea, regardless).

Speaking as a veteran, yes, there is some fat that could be trimmed. And the procurement process is colossally effed up. It wastes billions of dollars -- especially when Congress insists the military buy weapons systems they don't want or need.

Brand-New Air Force Planes Dumped at Tucson Boneyard | The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch | Tucson Weekly

Cutting waste and improving efficiency is not the same as taking a hatchet because some myopic politicians think it's a fat, easy target.