Come join us for The Peoples Day Rally

[Martin]

bull sh!t

stop trying to circumvent the filters... that goes for everyone. -M

[Caboose]

Sure most are harmless folks but when you have the classy twins Palin and Bauchman (sp?) spewin garbage i am concerned someone in the group will lash out

So let's get this straight.

Guy #1 goes to a rally in which Palin speaks and you think that is just cause to be concerned that he is a terror threat.

Guy #2 gathers weekly for 20 years to hear Jeremiah Wright spew garbage and is friends with an ACTUAL terrorist and you vote him into the White House.

The cognitive dissonance required for you to live in your ideological house of cards is utterly astounding.

[Caboose]

They don't have a valid grievance..Bunch of folks that like to bitch about whatever whenever getting together is all

Which of their grievances is invalid, and why?

not saying they are racist either..white folks griping about liberties they enjoy is annoying to me...don't know why just is

Well you are the one bringing up race, so you SHOULD be the last one calling someone racist.
And the "white folks" aren't griping about the liberties they enjoy, so no wonder you can't articulate what is so offensive about it.

[Easy180]

So let's get this straight.

Guy #1 goes to a rally in which Palin speaks and you think that is just cause to be concerned that he is a terror threat.

Guy #2 gathers weekly for 20 years to hear Jeremiah Wright spew garbage and is friends with an ACTUAL terrorist and you vote him into the White House.

The cognitive dissonance required for you to live in your ideological house of cards is utterly astounding.

Obama can't leave his bedroom without someone knowing it so he doesn't scare me as much as the "reload" loner with nuthin to lose

[Caboose]

Obama can't leave his bedroom without someone knowing it so he doesn't scare me as much as the "reload" loner with nuthin to lose

It is really comforting that the best way you could think of dealing with someone who you deemed a potential terrorist was to vote into the highest office of the land so that he could influence as many people as possible.

[JerzeeGrlinOKC]

1. The federal government has outgrown its intended scale and scope and needs to be reigned in to a smaller and less intrusive size.
2. Taxes are too high and government spending is irresponsible.
3. Personal responsibility should be encouraged and dependency on the state should be discouraged. And policies should reflect that idea.
4. People should be free of bondage and intrusion from the federal government to pursue and create their own destiny. In other words - Personal liberty, socially and economically.

I try not to wade into these things, but this is really bothering me and I have some honest questions. Its easy to point and criticize the government at this grandiose scale when you are not the one who is trying to make legislation and maintain a prosperous nation. I'm sure to some degree you are correct about your 4 points above, but from a construction point of view, can you possible answer the following questions (which correspond to your statements above)?

1.) What is a "smaller and less intrusive scale" to you? Which government services do you think should be removed?
2.) Are taxes really too high? That's just like saying gas prices are too high without knowing what the money goes for. What is "too high" to you? What is a more acceptable range? And for that question, again, refer to my first question.
3.) Sure I agree with you in principle. But I have to ask, what do you think things would be like if these services were removed? Would there be no exceptions? How would you reform the system if you had the chance?
4.) I agree with you totally. But, what in our current system is really preventing this? What kind of intrusions do you object to? Are there intrusions that are perhaps necessary to keep safety and peace that you haven't considered?

I think I would have more respect for the tea party movement as a whole if these questions could honestly be answered by the leadership, or even by some of its members.

Caboose you still haven't answered my 4 questions? I do understand if you need awhile to come up with an answer though.

[Caboose]

Caboose you still haven't answered my 4 questions? I do understand if you need awhile to come up with an answer though.

I am not a tea partier. I dont know on the specifics. Those 4 things seem to be their main points.

The point is that none of these statists who spend their time attacking the teabaggers will admit that they are offended by the basic points of the teabaggers. Instead they try this inane "terrorist" angle after swearing they think they are irrelevant.

The reason Easy is ignoring the question is understandable. Either he can admit he disagrees with them, which proves my point that the only actual reason he takes the time to ridicule them is that he is just lashing out at anyone who refuses to worship at the alter of government and that he fears their influence in the elections in November. Or, he can say he agrees with their points, which in turn makes him self-identified teabagger and presumed potential terrorist.

[JerzeeGrlinOKC]

I am not a tea partier. I dont know on the specifics. Those 4 things seem to be their main points.

The point is that none of these statists who spend their time attacking the teabaggers will admit that they are offended by the basic points of the teabaggers. Instead they try this inane "terrorist" angle after swearing they think they are irrelevant.

Nice dodge. I'll be waiting for a tea party supporter to answer I suppose. Truth is the answers are not easy.

I'm not sure why you would classify someone who disagrees with the tea party as a "statist" but anyhow...

I don't think disagreeing with a "teabagger" is because of disagreement with the main points you listed. I can agree with 2 of them in principle, at least. However, I think it is more that they are complaining about something that doesn't have a clear solution, and no solutions are being offered by the leadership.

Saying that you are "taxed too much" without offering items that you would rather not be taxed for, or providing a range of taxes that you would agree to (because you have to be taxed something, you use government services everyday), is not a main point for an argument.

Saying that the government is "too intrusive" without providing examples of what you find objectionable or that people are too dependent on the state without citing what programs you would cut (or thinking about how to solve the problems that caused those programs to be there in the first place), is not a main point for an argument.

But since the complaints are far easier than the solutions, the tea party movement will continue to descend into an angry, empty exchange of inflammatory words and overt generalizations.

[Caboose]

Nice dodge. I'll be waiting for a tea party supporter to answer I suppose. Truth is the answers are not easy.

I'm not sure why you would classify someone who disagrees with the tea party as a "statist" but anyhow...

I don't think disagreeing with a "teabagger" is because of disagreement with the main points you listed. I can agree with 2 of them in principle, at least. However, I think it is more that they are complaining about something that doesn't have a clear solution, and no solutions are being offered by the leadership.

Saying that you are "taxed too much" without offering items that you would rather not be taxed for, or providing a range of taxes that you would agree to (because you have to be taxed something, you use government services everyday), is not a main point for an argument.

Saying that the government is "too intrusive" without providing examples of what you find objectionable or that people are too dependent on the state without citing what programs you would cut (or thinking about how to solve the problems that caused those programs to be there in the first place), is not a main point for an argument.

But since the complaints are far easier than the solutions, the tea party movement will continue to descend into an angry, empty exchange of inflammatory words and overt generalizations.

How is it a dodge? And I am not classifying "anyone" who disagrees with them as statists... I am specifically referring to our well established statists that troll this board.

And understand, I am not saying the teabaggers are right or wrong. I am simply dispelling this BS notion that Easy and Boston and the other statists are trying to pass over that the reason they are ridiculing the baggers is because they are "concerned they might be try to pull another McVeigh". No, they are demonizing them because the baggers disagree with the statist religion and their voices will affect the polls in November.

[Easy180]

How is it a dodge? And I am not classifying "anyone" who disagrees with them as statists... I am specifically referring to our well established statists that troll this board.

And understand, I am not saying the teabaggers are right or wrong. I am simply dispelling this BS notion that Easy and Boston and the other statists are trying to pass over that the reason they are ridiculing the baggers is because they are "concerned they might be try to pull another McVeigh". No, they are demonizing them because the baggers disagree with the statist religion and their voices will affect the polls in November.

Voices are fine in november since I lean conservative...just be less annoying if they didn't use them again until then

[JerzeeGrlinOKC]

Sigh, I don't know about your feud with others on this board, I really haven't been following it, and that is not my point in the slightest.

This is the same sort of distraction-inducing rhetoric (from both sides, I suppose) that will keep meaningful discussion from being had.

So far, I've not seen too much meaningful discussion, from this board, or from the tea party movement members or leadership. And until that point, the tea party to me will just continue to be an empty repository for anger.

Show me some substance. Please, somebody, try to answer my questions! If you need me to re-post them, just let me know.

[Caboose]

Sigh, I don't know about your feud with others on this board, I really haven't been following it, and that is not my point in the slightest.

This is the same sort of distraction-inducing rhetoric (from both sides, I suppose) that will keep meaningful discussion from being had.

So far, I've not seen too much meaningful discussion, from this board, or from the tea party movement members or leadership. And until that point, the tea party to me will just continue to be an empty repository for anger.

Show me some substance. Please, somebody, try to answer my questions! If you need me to re-post them, just let me know.

Well, I dont know that anyone who represents the tea party is on this board. I dont even know that the tea party has leadership. Seems to be a sort of motley and random group of people who generally agree that the government is too big for its britches. So I am not sure where your beef comes from.

[Caboose]

Voices are fine in november since I lean conservative...just be less annoying if they didn't use them again until then

Oh you lean conservative huh? Which of the main points of the teabaggers do you agree with?

[Lauri101]

I try not to wade into these things, but this is really bothering me and I have some honest questions. Its easy to point and criticize the government at this grandiose scale when you are not the one who is trying to make legislation and maintain a prosperous nation. I'm sure to some degree you are correct about your 4 points above, but from a construction point of view, can you possible answer the following questions (which correspond to your statements above)?

1.) What is a "smaller and less intrusive scale" to you? Which government services do you think should be removed?
2.) Are taxes really too high? That's just like saying gas prices are too high without knowing what the money goes for. What is "too high" to you? What is a more acceptable range? And for that question, again, refer to my first question.
3.) Sure I agree with you in principle. But I have to ask, what do you think things would be like if these services were removed? Would there be no exceptions? How would you reform the system if you had the chance?
4.) I agree with you totally. But, what in our current system is really preventing this? What kind of intrusions do you object to? Are there intrusions that are perhaps necessary to keep safety and peace that you haven't considered?

I think I would have more respect for the tea party movement as a whole if these questions could honestly be answered by the leadership, or even by some of its members.

I think these were the same questions I asked in this thread, some two pages back. My questions were phrased with a little humor, but still no response.

JerzeeGrl - I don't think we'll ever get an answer.

[Easy180]

Oh you lean conservative huh? Which of the main points of the teabaggers do you agree with?

If those are their main 4 I guess the only one is personal responsibilities

[PennyQuilts]

Sigh, I don't know about your feud with others on this board, I really haven't been following it, and that is not my point in the slightest.

This is the same sort of distraction-inducing rhetoric (from both sides, I suppose) that will keep meaningful discussion from being had.

So far, I've not seen too much meaningful discussion, from this board, or from the tea party movement members or leadership. And until that point, the tea party to me will just continue to be an empty repository for anger.

Show me some substance. Please, somebody, try to answer my questions! If you need me to re-post them, just let me know.

What sort of thing are you looking for? These people are asking that they be heard on certain issues. Their rallies are less towards fellow citizens as it is towards congress and this administration to hear their concerns. They don't need leadership for that. They aren't (at this point) trying to get candidates to run in November in some sort of tea party political party. And yes, they are very angry - that is much the point - they want the government to know they don't agree with the direction this country is going. That is pretty much it. They are speaking out to their representatives so that they are heard.

[Bostonfan]

I think these were the same questions I asked in this thread, some two pages back. My questions were phrased with a little humor, but still no response.

JerzeeGrl - I don't think we'll ever get an answer.

I really don't think anyone who posts here went. If they took the time to go, and believed in whatever it is they believe in, wouldn't they want to talk about it? Wouldn't they want to answer questions? Wouldn't they want to tell everyone what is right about the party? So far the only people who have tried to answer anything didn't even go.

[Bostonfan]

What sort of thing are you looking for? .

How about this question. I've seen/heard this thrown out by the tea baggers many times. Still not sure what they are talking about, maybe you could clarify. What does this mean? "Take Back America"

[JerzeeGrlinOKC]

What sort of thing are you looking for? These people are asking that they be heard on certain issues. Their rallies are less towards fellow citizens as it is towards congress and this administration to hear their concerns. They don't need leadership for that. They aren't (at this point) trying to get candidates to run in November in some sort of tea party political party. And yes, they are very angry - that is much the point - they want the government to know they don't agree with the direction this country is going. That is pretty much it. They are speaking out to their representatives so that they are heard.

Its fine to be angry, but being angry for angry sake is not going to get you anywhere. I think that is a large problem. The rallies have become a repository for unfettered anger because the point has become lost.

I just think that the effectiveness of their message to their representatives would be made more clear if they had some specific goals in mind. I don't think the movement will get vary far by just crying that taxes are too high and the government is too intrusive or has overstepped their boundaries. So what? What does one actually do about this?

So a reasonable question to ask is - you want your taxes lowered. Ok fine. What would make you happy? 10 percent cut? 20 percent cut? When push comes to shove, sacrifices have to be made to get to that point, and I'm just curious about the things one would cut to actually lower taxes - substantially. I don't think most people know what their tax dollars go for. Maybe this is more of the problem. Sure there is waste, but what is the largest source of waste? Maybe a possible solution to the anger problem is to make it more clear to the public a breakdown in taxes and where they go, state by state.

And the fact that you acknowledge that there "does not need to be leadership for that" highlights why I think this movement is without substance. Do the members of the tea party truly want something to happen? Or do they just enjoy carrying a picket sign at the capitol on a Thursday afternoon?

As I said, its easier to criticize than it is to solve a problem, and that is all I have heard so far. Not impressed to say the least. The scary thing I think is that without effective leadership, potential candidates like Sarah Palin can ride along the wave without offering actual solutions to tea party cries and potentially be elected into office because of it. Then its just more of the same.

[kevinpate]

How about this question. I've seen/heard this thrown out by the tea baggers many times. Still not sure what they are talking about, maybe you could clarify. What does this mean? "Take Back America"

Means the same danged thing it meant when the more liberal element was out of the power perch -

Govt. ought to function in the manner the objector, and folks who think like the objector, want it to function.

The specifics on what that means vary based on what group has the remote, so to speak, but the desire folks hold for things to function as they prefer is universal as they try to nab the remote.

[JerzeeGrlinOKC]

Who decides "excessive" or "unfair"? To whom is the accountability owed? Who has the responsibility to be accountable?

At least I'm not the only one asking...thanks Lauri

[PennyQuilts]

How about this question. I've seen/heard this thrown out by the tea baggers many times. Still not sure what they are talking about, maybe you could clarify. What does this mean? "Take Back America"

I believe they think the government needs to stop bailing out private industry - get away from the "too big to fail" policy - return to more limited government with fewer entitlements - and get out of the business of over regulating small businesses and individuals. They believe this supports the intent of the Constitution. I am sure there is more to it but the bottom line is to encourage personal responsibility, hold the government more accountable for how it handles our money and get out of the way of private enterprise.

One thing that is very important is that the tea party is not really fueled by social conservatism. What the followers share is fiscal conservatism and most aren't interested in getting into the social issues. It is about money, taxes, business, jobs, government accountability, return to Constitutional principals (federalism) and personal accountability.

What has traditionally divided the GOP is that there is the social conservative wing and the fiscally conservative wing. Of course there is quite a bit of over lap but most people who are conservatives will tell you if they are fiscally conservative but not socially conservative. Or vice versa. You don't see that so much with the liberals (i.e., that they fiscally liberal but not socially liberal - although you frequently hear people say they are socially liberal but a fiscally conservative). I'd say the Tea Partiers, when compared to the GOP, could roughly be called the a group that believes in the same things as the fiscally conservative wing except that many flat out don't want to be associated with the GOP. There are a ton of independants who support the movement because they are fiscal conservatives but socially moderate or liberal - but mad at hell at both parties for being spendthrifts. None of the tea baggers that I know or have read about support this health care bill, in large part because they don't think it will work and we can't afford it. They also believe it is too far an intrusion into our lives by the federal government and don't trust them to not screw everything up.

[Caboose]

If those are their main 4 I guess the only one is personal responsibilities

So you "lean conservative" yet you think taxes should be higher, the government should spend irresponsibly, the government should be big and intrusive, and that the government should control the economy? LOL what conservative ideals DO you stand behind?

[Easy180]

So you "lean conservative" yet you think taxes should be higher, the government should spend irresponsibly, the government should be big and intrusive, and that the government should control the economy? LOL what conservative ideals DO you stand behind?

Didn't say taxes should be higher...just sayin they really don't have a gripe in that area...could change of course but for now they seem rather reasonable

[joel228]

I'll answer your questions, JerzeeGrl...

1.) What is a "smaller and less intrusive scale" to you? Which government services do you think should be removed?

I advocate constitutional government according to the 10th amendment. There are numerous government services that should be removed. Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, the EPA. There are numerous agencies that need to be downsized drastically such as DOT, Homeland Security, FDA, FCC, and others. While tricky, I support phasing out Social Security, Medicare, and any federal welfare program.

2.) Are taxes really too high? That's just like saying gas prices are too high without knowing what the money goes for. What is "too high" to you? What is a more acceptable range? And for that question, again, refer to my first question.

Personally, my issue is less with the amount of taxes I pay and more with the purpose of the taxes. I want to support the military, transportation infrastructure, and other critical pieces of the Federal government described in the Constitution. I do not wish to fund any government services that I feel are a violation of the Constitution. Is my opinion or wishes supreme and more important than others? Nope, but I do get to vote and I do get to exercise my right to voice my opinion to my elected officials. Why villify the tea partiers for doing that?

3.) Sure I agree with you in principle. But I have to ask, what do you think things would be like if these services were removed? Would there be no exceptions? How would you reform the system if you had the chance?

This is particularly tricky, and one I'm not sure Tea Partiers have thought through completely. To return to constitutional government immediately would be disastrous for many people. I believe in voting for people who will not expand already overreaching federal powers, who will be willing to make steps and cuts toward constitutional government as opportunities present themselves. It is impossible to get everything we want. It would be too disruptive. I just want steps in the right direction and to stop running the wrong way.

4.) I agree with you totally. But, what in our current system is really preventing this? What kind of intrusions do you object to? Are there intrusions that are perhaps necessary to keep safety and peace that you haven't considered?

I object to federal intrusion into personal and state's freedom in many areas... I firmly believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to outright ban abortion if that be the will of Oklahoma's voters. I believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to educate our children without taking money from other states and without the Federal government's interference. I believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to determine what forms of retirement or health care should be mandated if any, and tax or fund those programs on a local level. I also oppose a federal ban on gay marriage (though I support Oklahoma's right to ban it). In other words, I believe we as Oklahomans should be able to decide issues for ourselves right here in our state except where the constitution specifically gives powers to the Federal government to interfere.