quote Originally posted by Wichita: It's easy! Don't belong to groups. I have no idea what the Tea Party is anymore. It's been so splintered, hijacked, redefined, born several times, misaligned as Republicans, then aligned to Republicans, then aligned to Glenn Beck then to Rush Limbaugh, back to Republicans and now to Michele Bachmann. I know it's still around but I think it's just fraction of what it really was several years ago. I think it's just about dead and we can chalk it up as a passing phase, much like the Moral Majority was back in the early 80's.

The tea party seems to be the far right of the republican party, if they want to be their "own" party they should run as third option IMO.

quote Originally posted by newf: The tea party seems to be the far right of the republican party, if they want to be their "own" party they should run as third option IMO.

What is "far right" about wanting the Federal Government to balance its checkbook, and stop borrowing and printing money?

And if that is "far right", then what is "far left"? Keep spending money you don't have?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: What is "far right" about wanting the Federal Government to balance its checkbook, and stop borrowing and printing money? And if that is "far right", then what is "far left"? Keep spending money you don't have?

I think it's generally accepted that the tea parties views are more "right" or more hardline conservative than most.

However the real point of my post is that unless they decide to run as a third party then they are just a faction of the larger republican party IMO. A new name for the "religious right" some have suggested.

quote Originally posted by newf: I think it's generally accepted that the tea parties views are more "right" or more hardline conservative than most. However the real point of my post is that unless they decide to run as a third party then they are just a faction of the larger republican party IMO. A new name for the "religious right" some have suggested.

Wow.. 3 pages and it still hasn't sunk in.

"Generally accepted".. No, it would be "Generally publicised"
?New name for the religious right? How so?

Where in "Taxed Enough Already" are you getting religious fundie issues? The Progressives have spent the last 3 years throwing poo at the TEA party and you obviously have accepted every smear/slur/insult as gospel.. Nice independent thinking.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Wow.. 3 pages and it still hasn't sunk in. "Generally accepted".. No, it would be "Generally publicised" ?New name for the religious right? How so? Where in "Taxed Enough Already" are you getting religious fundie issues? The Progressives have spent the last 3 years throwing poo at the TEA party and you obviously have accepted every smear/slur/insult as gospel.. Nice independent thinking.

You can read it for yourself
http://pewresearch.org/pubs...nservative-christian

quote In the Pew Research Center's August 2010 poll, 69% of registered voters who agreed with the religious right also said they agreed with the Tea Party. Moreover, both the religious right and the Tea Party count a higher percentage of white evangelical Protestants in their ranks (45% among the religious right, 34% among the Tea Party and 22% among all registered voters in the August 2010 survey). Religiously unaffiliated people are less common among Tea Party or religious right supporters than among the public at-large (3% among the religious right, 10% among the Tea Party and 15% among all registered voters in the August poll).

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-21-2011).]

And what's your point?

"69% of registered voters who agreed with the religious right also said they agreed with the Tea Party" They agree with, does not mean they are the core.

That's like taking a survey of Communists and Socalists and asking who they agree more with, the Dem's or Rep's?.. It's a "Ya duh" question. And sloppy/lazy journalism.

I'm non-religious, borderline agnostic, pro gay rights, neutral on abortion.. I align more with the tea party.

Are you really this dense or just trying to be obtuse?

I am not a tea party member or supporter (although I think they have some valid arguments). But I have a question..

As I understand it, the main thrust of the tea party is to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Said grievances include (very generally):

Rampant overspending, dangerous debt, high taxes, and infringement on the liberties of individuals.

So, they want responsible federal spending to address the debt crisis, lower taxes, and less government in their personal lives. And they support candidates for office to those ends. As far as I can tell, they do so inclusively and peacefully.

My question is..what exactly is controversial?

quote Originally posted by Uaana: And what's your point? "69% of registered voters who agreed with the religious right also said they agreed with the Tea Party" They agree with, does not mean they are the core. That's like taking a survey of Communists and Socalists and asking who they agree more with, the Dem's or Rep's?.. It's a "Ya duh" question. And sloppy/lazy journalism. I'm non-religious, borderline agnostic, pro gay rights, neutral on abortion.. I align more with the tea party. Are you really this dense or just trying to be obtuse?

Well thanks for the insults, I see you're not just non-religious, borderline agnostic, pro gay rights, neutral on abortion but also disrespectful.

My point is exactly what I said it was the Tea Parties views are more right or hardline conservative than most!

My larger point is that they are a subset of another party which IMO makes it difficult to give them credit as anything but a movement within the GOP as the Religious right are.

quote Originally posted by newf: I would guess that part of the controversy is that the Tea Party candidates seem to have the same ideals which include much more than those 4 things you mentioned.

What things?

quote I would suggest that a party can SAY they are for more employment, lower gas prices, no deficit and more freedom and get plenty of votes but one usually has to look deeper than that.

Ok. Have you? Be specific.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: Ok. Have you? Be specific.

I think I can answer both by saying Christian Conservatism.

quote Originally posted by newf: I think I can answer both by saying Christian Conservatism.

Which has WHAT to do with wanting the government to balance its checkbook (for a change)?

If so, then what is "mainstream" thought? Spend like a drunken sailor, and not give a s*** that such spending is not sustainable?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Which has WHAT to do with wanting the government to balance its checkbook (for a change)? If so, then what is "mainstream" thought? Spend like a drunken sailor, and not give a s*** that such spending is not sustainable?

Obama is a christian.
Why is it his religion is no threat, but everyone who has a shade of conservatism is a threat.
Go figure.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Which has WHAT to do with wanting the government to balance its checkbook (for a change)? If so, then what is "mainstream" thought? Spend like a drunken sailor, and not give a s*** that such spending is not sustainable?

Running a Government and representing people have more to do than with one issue, even if that issue is of vital importance IMO.

Who is it that are saying that they DON'T want to balance its checkbook??

You can disagree with the policy of current administrations all you like but again my point is that the Tea Party seems to be a group within the Republican party. Why not run as a third party?

quote Originally posted by newf: I think I can answer both by saying Christian Conservatism.

You are not getting off that easy. Elaborate please.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: You are not getting off that easy. Elaborate please.

I'm sorry what is it you would like? I have stated my questions and opinions many times.

They appear to run candidates that are Christian COnservatives therefore I would guess that they would have similar ideals.

From what I have read the Tea Party candidates have introduced Christian Conservative policy since being in power, so to say they are ONLY interested in the 4 ideals you mentioned would be simplistic in my view as ANY representative usually has to make decisions about many more issues than those.

Maybe I have a misconception about the Tea Party as I am merely going by my observation and research, part of the reason why I am asking questions.

quote Originally posted by newf: Running a Government and representing people have more to do than with one issue, even if that issue is of vital importance IMO. [quote] True, but the main issue for the Tea Party AND my country right now is the budget situation. [quote]Who is it that are saying that they DON'T want to balance its checkbook??

Those who oppose balancing the budget by way of their ACTIONS. They can say whatever they want, if the veto or threaten veto of any legislation that balances the budget, then their actions are doing the talking. And the Senate (led by Democrats) has voted down GOP legislation that would have balanced the budget and addressed the national debt. The president said he'd veto it. Their actions, newf.

quote You can disagree with the policy of current administrations all you like but again my point is that the Tea Party seems to be a group within the Republican party. Why not run as a third party?

The Tea Party is a group within the Republican Party. And EVERYONE knows that a third party would divide the conservative and independent vote, which means the Democrats win.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I've been involved in the Tea Party long enough to be able to answer your question. The Tea Party isn't dealing with *every* issue, only the most critical at this point. If the critical issues aren't dealt with, and soon, then nothing else will really matter much.

Yes Clearly only the most critical are listed below.

quote South Dakota: any adult 21 or older would have to buy a firearm "for their ordinary self-defence". Montana: House Bill 278 would authorise arming citizens' militias against invaders. New Hampshire: a volunteer "permanent state defence force" would assist with disaster relief and "defend the state against invasion". Missouri: State Senator Jane Cunningham has proposed allowing employment of children under 14 and ending restrictions on work hours. Arizona: a proposed law would let the state actually nullify federal laws that legislators believe are invalid. Georgia: a Republican recently introduced a bill mandating that victims of rape, stalking, harassment, and family violence be reclassified as "accusers". Nebraska: a "justifiable homicide" bill would allow homicide if committed by a person while resisting an attempt to harm an unborn foetus

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...-across-America.html

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Yes there has been no chatter about Obama's religion. I actually don't think there is anything wrong with Christian Conservatism, it's not really for me but if a political group wants to run candidates that support it that's what democracy is all about. What confuses me is if the Tea Party candidates are Chrisitan Conservatives that won't come out and actually say they are as some suggest or are they not.

Doubt if you will ever understand the Tea Party.
Must be some hidden religious agenda to them though, yea that is it.

Just more hate spewed by the left that can't stand an opposing view, so they must be demonized.
Even called Tea Baggers even by the pres.
Never in my life would I have ever figured one of our presidents would call 30 million citizens CSuckers.
At least not in public.

And there are a lines of derogatory names they have been called by other elected officials.
This type of crap is usually reserved for 3rd world dictators.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Yes Clearly only the most critical are listed below.

One man's "extreme" is another man's common sense. But anyway, do you think that means that a majority of Tea Party members support everything on that list?

quote Originally posted by newf: I would guess that part of the controversy is that the Tea Party candidates seem to have the same ideals which include much more than those 4 things you mentioned. I would suggest that a party can SAY they are for more employment, lower gas prices, no deficit and more freedom and get plenty of votes but one usually has to look deeper than that.

How deep do you want to look? The only candidate who is representing the ideals that the tea party were founded on is Ron Paul. And you only have to look at thirty years of his voting record to know who he is and what he stands for.

There are a couple of reasons he doesn't run as a third party- first because third party candidates have typically only created a rift in the voting process stealing votes form one side more than another. But then, I'm sure you already knew that. But the other reason he doesn't is because if you ask him, he'll tell you that he's more of a republican than any of the other "republicans". Given that, why would he choose to run under the name of another party?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: One man's "extreme" is another man's common sense. But anyway, do you think that means that a majority of Tea Party members support everything on that list?

No that was more of a joke to be honest. I still wonder about the Tea Party's ideals as I often see avoidence of questions by it's representatives but they have proven to be a more powerful force than many had predicted.

quote Originally posted by newf: No that was more of a joke to be honest. I still wonder about the Tea Party's ideals as I often see avoidence of questions by it's representatives but they have proven to be a more powerful force than many had predicted.

I've found the Tea Party's answers to be refreshingly honest and straight forward.

quote Originally posted by newf: I think it's generally accepted that the tea parties views are more "right" or more hardline conservative than most. However the real point of my post is that unless they decide to run as a third party then they are just a faction of the larger republican party IMO. A new name for the "religious right" some have suggested.

The TEA party is just a name slapped to a social movement. There is no physical or official "party" like democrats or GOP. This is like saying the "Hippies" in the 1960's should start their own party rather then pushing their views. There is no party.

The TEA party is nothing more then a social movement of like minded Americans who have decided they will no longer remain silent. They may endorse people and get behind them, but this is no different then any other social group. TEA party groups are made up of Independents, conservatives, Libertarians, Republicans, even Democrats. I went to one once to see what it was like, and they were everyday soccer moms, working dads, blue collar, white collar, and everything in between. Simply put....they were every day Americans. Not some fringe group of people.

quote Originally posted by newf: Are the Tea Party supporting him? I was under the impression that their "candidates" were Perry and Bachmann.

Earlier this year

Tea Party poll picks Ron Paul, Herman Cain for 2012 (Feb)
http://content.usatoday.com...-presidential-poll/1

Ron Paul Wins Worcester, MA Tea Party Straw Poll (Apr)
http://www.dailypaul.com/16...tea-party-straw-poll

This appears to be more recent
http://myteaparty.org/results/

1. Rep. Michele Bachmann 77 %
2. Gov. Rick Perry 72 %
3. Gov. Sarah Palin 68 %
4. Herman Cain 67 %
5. Rep. Paul Ryan 65 %
6. Rep. Ron Paul 54 %
7. Sen. Rick Santorum 53 %
8. Newt Gingrich 47 %
9. Gov. Gary Johnson 42 %
10. Gov. Mitt Romney 36 %
11. Rudy Giuliani 36 %
12. Gov. George Pataki 32 %
13. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter 32 %
14. Gov. Jon Huntsman 26 %

(poll results are explained at the above link)

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The Tea Party is a group within the Republican Party. And EVERYONE knows that a third party would divide the conservative and independent vote, which means the Democrats win.

Additionally, and unfortunately, it would also split the Republican Party

quote Originally posted by newf: Are the Tea Party supporting him? I was under the impression that their "candidates" were Perry and Bachmann.

Honestly, I have no idea what the "tea party" is doing. I'm not sure they even know. Ron Paul is considered to be the father of the tea party, as it was his ideas and strong adherence to the Constitution that spawned the tea parties and hence the name. My guess is there are factions that are backing other candidates, but most of the people that I know who consider themselves to be "tea party" people are backing Paul. I say that because I think that while many tea party people may be your typical conservative (and some might even have strong religious beliefs), I think that they also have a strong commitment to the constitution, and agree with Ron that while they have those beliefs, it's not the job of the federal government to dictate those beliefs to others.

I don't really pay too much attention to the whole tea party label. I support Ron Paul the man, I don't care what label he runs under.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Honestly, I have no idea what the "tea party" is doing. I'm not sure they even know. Ron Paul is considered to be the father of the tea party, as it was his ideas and strong adherence to the Constitution that spawned the tea parties and hence the name. My guess is there are factions that are backing other candidates, but most of the people that I know who consider themselves to be "tea party" people are backing Paul. I say that because I think that while many tea party people may be your typical conservative (and some might even have strong religious beliefs), I think that they also have a strong commitment to the constitution, and agree with Ron that while they have those beliefs, it's not the job of the federal government to dictate those beliefs to others. I don't really pay too much attention to the whole tea party label. I support Ron Paul the man, I don't care what label he runs under.

Thanks for that! A well thought out and reasoned response.

Not that some of the others weren't as well mind you.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Even called Tea Baggers even by the pres. Never in my life would I have ever figured one of our presidents would call 30 million citizens CSuckers.

That's not the proper definition of what the act of "teabagging" means. Both men and women can be teabagged (so it is not necessarily a homoosexual act) but the teabagging can only be done by a man. With "naughty bits" clothed usually, but not necessarily always. Usually, the "tea" stays in the bag.

I won't actually describe the action, if you really want to know, I recommend watching the movie "Pecker" (which is actually a great movie, IMHO) Thats where i first heard about it and found out what it was. Lets's just say it happens all the time when male strippers dance, and it does not usually involve the removal of their bottoms, so no sucking on "c"s can be involved.



And I have to say, if the Tea Party did not want to be identified with a description of such an act, they should have chosen something better to name themselves. They made it only too easy to make fun of their name, much like the I-Pad.. I mean, cmon.

Didn't anyone actually think things through or AT LEAST ask a couple of younger people before going full steam ahead with that name? I also see the tea party intentionally taking on the offense as much as anyone who gives it.. in a way, I believe they enjoy the "persecution" and use it to try and generate sympathy.

What's next, a bunch of old guys playing in a brass band at a tea party event under the name "rusty trombones"?

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Thanks for that! A well thought out and reasoned response. Not that some of the others weren't as well mind you.

If I could expand on what taiji said, the Tea Party is a loose-knit group of *individuals*. We don't all agree on everything, but we agree on certain core principles. We don't agree on who we want our Presidential candidate to be, but we have a basic idea of who and what that person should be about. I haven't made any choices, because it is early in the process, and I want to hear more debates and get more information. I will make my decision when I have sufficient information. I suspect other Tea Party folks will do the same.

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm sorry what is it you would like? I have stated my questions and opinions many times. They appear to run candidates that are Christian COnservatives therefore I would guess that they would have similar ideals. From what I have read the Tea Party candidates have introduced Christian Conservative policy since being in power, so to say they are ONLY interested in the 4 ideals you mentioned would be simplistic in my view as ANY representative usually has to make decisions about many more issues than those. Maybe I have a misconception about the Tea Party as I am merely going by my observation and research, part of the reason why I am asking questions.

Ok, I'll humor you.. Why is supporting candidates with Christian values controversial?

quote Originally posted by tbone42: And I have to say, if the Tea Party did not want to be identified with a description of such an act, they should have chosen something better to name themselves. They made it only too easy to make fun of their name, much like the I-Pad.. I mean, cmon. Didn't anyone actually think things through or AT LEAST ask a couple of younger people before going full steam ahead with that name? I also see the tea party intentionally taking on the offense as much as anyone who gives it.. in a way, I believe they enjoy the "persecution" and use it to try and generate sympathy.

The Tea Party was so named in the spirit of protest, and in reference to "the Boston tea party". THAT'S what it is about. That others have chosen to interpret that as a sexual pejorative is on THEM, not us. If people want to be crass and condescending about it, then it is THEY who are crass and condescending.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: Ok, I'll humor you.. Why is supporting candidates with Christian values controversial?

Many topics are considered controversial, I guess it would depend on which "values" we are talking about.

Some that come to mind are Gay Rights, Abortion, Evolution/Creationism...etc.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The Tea Party was so named in the spirit of protest, and in reference to "the Boston tea party". THAT'S what it is about.

No foolin'???!! I would have NEVER guessed. (sarcasm)
Give me a break.

quote That others have chosen to interpret that as a sexual pejorative is on THEM, not us. If people want to be crass and condescending about it, then it is THEY who are crass and condescending.

And as I said, you and others are only to happy to take on the mantle of the poor, persecuted party to garner sympathy. And use just as many insulting slogans agaist Democrats.
Dumbocrats, Socialists, Marxists, Muslim, NoBama, Barry the Annointed One, Barry the Kenyan, Obamacare.. none of that is offensive, is it? How quickly we forget.

Tell you what, I have never used the term Tea Baggers when referring to the Tea Party, so you really are barking up the wrong tree, jack.