[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am more concerned with the Obama Administration not prosecuting wind farms who kill eagles, all in the name of green energy. Looks like that comes with a hint of red.
You would think this would come from a Republican administration.
hey, if you want an omelette you have to crack some eggs, ya dig? #Obamanation #4moreyears #FeelTheBern #hashtag #InBillWeTrust #ImaUsefulIdiot
The Tea party to me has always just been a group promoting conservatism, something the Republican party had given up on. It’s not new, or crazy, it just hasn’t been public in decades.
[quote]treco wrote:
Actually more interested in what specific issues or stances you disagree with, as opposed to why they are the Return of the Evil Empire led by Satan & his advisers Khan, Hitler, Stalin, & Mao.
15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
*edit List included now About Tea Party | Tea Party
[/quote]
3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 - combined and “non-negotiable” - are not mathematically feasible unless you plan on downsizing the government (all levels) to Night Watchman State levels. THat won’t happen - and shouldn’t happen.
Tea Partiers are as reliant on fantasies as communists.
What is the Tea Party’s official position on Social Security? I have read they are against privatization. True?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What is the Tea Party’s official position on Social Security? I have read they are against privatization. True?[/quote]
Can the Tea party have an official position? If there an official Tea party?
[quote]cavemansam wrote:
[[I don’t see “prohibit protection of the environment” anywhere on that list. What am I missing here?]]
4,6
when you listen to some tea party canidates some things like environment take a seat in the back of the bus
[/quote]
Also 13, and as far as fracking is concerned probably 2
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 - combined and “non-negotiable” - are not mathematically feasible unless you plan on downsizing the government (all levels) to Night Watchman State levels. THat won’t happen - and shouldn’t happen.
Tea Partiers are as reliant on fantasies as communists.
[/quote]
The problem with this line of reasoning is the implicit, and well practiced, shoulder shrugging and Oh well, since we can’t do it all let’s do nothing sighing.[/quote]
Read again, champ. The point is all these positions are non-negotiable (which is also expressly from the website), meaning “we don’t budge on any of them, we’re doing them all.”
What you’re describing - “it’s ok to get some even if we can’t get all”, that is, the art of compromise - is the opposite of these things all being “non-negotiable”.
So, your lack of reading comprehension aside, back to my original point - if the numbered principles I listed are"non-negotiable", they are mathematically impossible.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What is the Tea Party’s official position on Social Security? I have read they are against privatization. True?[/quote]
Can the Tea party have an official position? If there an official Tea party?
[/quote]
It would appear so, since apostates get primaried or otherwise attacked for not having the One True Faith.
But whether it’s official or not, what is the Tea Party’s position (or those who consider themselves to be Tea Partiers) on Social Security?
Privatize? Abolish outright?
Surely not to keep it?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What is the Tea Party’s official position on Social Security? I have read they are against privatization. True?[/quote]
Can the Tea party have an official position? If there an official Tea party?
[/quote]
It would appear so, since apostates get primaried or otherwise attacked for not having the One True Faith.
But whether it’s official or not, what is the Tea Party’s position (or those who consider themselves to be Tea Partiers) on Social Security?
Privatize? Abolish outright?
Surely not to keep it?[/quote]
Keep it, minus some “fraud and abuse.”
Then there’s medicaid and medicare, which 70% of self identified tea-party folk oppose cuts to, according to a national McClatchy-Marist poll.
Page 20 for the table.
So, the reality is that the Tea Party–which boils down to the people the movement is comprised of–stand for barely (if at all) shrinking government (except defense, where I imagine the desire is to grow it even more), and balancing the budget by starving it of funds to pay for the untouched entitlement and increased military spending. /Scratches head.
Oh yeah, and an absolutely cold, no mercy given, non-compromising, one size fits all man-hunt and mass deportation of illegal immigrants.
To summarize; cut taxes on people who are still doing ok under their present tax burden, make sure those who struggle to even afford insurance to cover their children have “skin in the game,” increase military spending further, don’t touch entitlements outside of some “waste and fraud,” and rip ma and pa out of their community of 10 years though their daughters are legal citizens because no nuances and no compromises.
Everybody who played SIM CITY 2000 knows wind power is whack.
Wyoming seems like the ideal place for some kind of hydro electric dam. Jobs, power, fresh water, a reservoir for recreation. And more fish for the eagles. It seems like a Teddy Roosevelt thing to do.
But that would mean eminent domain issues for a bunch of jackolopes. Could the Tea Party support a public works project like that?
The wind farm subsidy and protection seems like some Teapot Dome, kickback situation.
People who wear North Face jackets, flip flops, and go to Dave Mathews Band concerts because they’re concerned about Mother Earth make everyone who is into conservation look bad.
Maybe some people dislike the Tea Party because they feel as if the Tea Party takes their views to the extreme, or kinda twists them or something.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]treco wrote:
Actually more interested in what specific issues or stances you disagree with, as opposed to why they are the Return of the Evil Empire led by Satan & his advisers Khan, Hitler, Stalin, & Mao.
15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
*edit List included now About Tea Party | Tea Party
[/quote]
3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 - combined and “non-negotiable” - are not mathematically feasible unless you plan on downsizing the government (all levels) to Night Watchman State levels. THat won’t happen - and shouldn’t happen.
Tea Partiers are as reliant on fantasies as communists.
[/quote]
Excellent post. The Tea Party’s platform is based on unmitigated ignorance of defense economics and security policy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, the reality is that the Tea Party–which boils down to the people the movement is comprised of–stand for barely (if at all) shrinking government (except defense, where I imagine the desire is to grow it even more), and balancing the budget by starving it of funds to pay for the untouched entitlement and increased military spending. /Scratches head.
Oh yeah, and an absolutely cold, no mercy given, non-compromising, one size fits all man-hunt and mass deportation of illegal immigrants.
To summarize; cut taxes on people who are still doing ok under their present tax burden, make sure those who struggle to even afford insurance to cover their children have “skin in the game,” increase military spending further, don’t touch entitlements outside of some “waste and fraud,” and rip ma and pa out of their community of 10 years though their daughters are legal citizens because no nuances and no compromises. [/quote]
Excellent post, and glad you chimed in, my good man - right in your wheelhouse.
And the stats above are consistent with what I’ve read - self-identified Tea Partiers aren’t interested in tearing down Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
And at this point, I’m less interested in the label and more interested in the solution - whether Tea Partier, libertarian, conservatarian, “constitutional” conservative , whatever - you want a balanced budget, no deficits, low taxes, and small government - then what are you proposing we do with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid?
(And so far, a curious response - ask what the Tea Party’s position is on this, and all of a sudden it’s a coy “Huh? Tea Party? With positions? Is that even a thing???”.)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 - combined and “non-negotiable” - are not mathematically feasible unless you plan on downsizing the government (all levels) to Night Watchman State levels. THat won’t happen - and shouldn’t happen.
Tea Partiers are as reliant on fantasies as communists.
[/quote]
The problem with this line of reasoning is the implicit, and well practiced, shoulder shrugging and Oh well, since we can’t do it all let’s do nothing sighing.[/quote]
Read again, champ. The point is all these positions are non-negotiable (which is also expressly from the website), meaning “we don’t budge on any of them, we’re doing them all.”
What you’re describing - “it’s ok to get some even if we can’t get all”, that is, the art of compromise - is the opposite of these things all being “non-negotiable”.
So, your lack of reading comprehension aside, back to my original point - if the numbered principles I listed are"non-negotiable", they are mathematically impossible.
[/quote]
I don’t know if I know any Tea Partiers personally but I do know a champ understands that “doing them all” means non-negotiably and aggressively working toward each and everyone of those goals.
Now on the other hand a chump would be some anonymous character who comes along on the internet who is too obsessed with hating Tea Partiers and subsequently too obtuse to clearly see that 99% of Tea Partiers would be most satisfied for the said aggressive action and even partial success as a result thereof.
As such, I think we’ll find that reading comprehension ends up being the problem of the chump. The champ just doesn’t seem to struggle quite so much in that area.[/quote]
“Non-negotiable” by definition means you won’t accept partial success. It’s what the damn word means, Einstein.
Now, you may think these positions are, in fact, negotiable - meaning the opposite of non-negotiable and available on which to compromise, or achieve partial success - but Treco is not, nor is the purveyor of the Tea Party website or its devoted adherents. And that is to whom I was making my point.
And I am right. If the positions are non-negotiable, then they are mathematically impossible.