Probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote.

[Razgovory]

The Tea Party Platform

I'm pretty sure that blogger is not the guy who gets to write the official platform for them. 

How far off is it? Seems to hit the majority of things I've heard Tea Partiers talk about.

The Tea Party isn't actually for anything besides not liking the President.  It has no central committee, or guiding body.  It's just old people who are unhappy cause they heard that communists were going to take over the country on the radio.

[derspiess]

Raz went a little crazy with it, but he has a something of a point.  The Tea Party is not some centralized movement, and can vary region by region and certainly by individual.  That makes them a bit harder to pin down on every issue.

Having said that, the one thing that tends to unite nearly all Tea Party types is the desire to cut (or at least freeze) government spending and influence.

[garbon]

Yeah, and you know what?  Everything about the fucking government involves money.  Money is single biggest factor in politics because governments run on money rather then say, candy or warm feelings.  If they said their major issue was the preserving the one eyed pocket trout the lives in one stream in Utah, it'd involve money.

What are you going on about now.  What I responded to was when you told dps that the tea party isn't about fiscal responsibility.

Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.

Except it's not.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, and you know what?  Everything about the fucking government involves money.  Money is single biggest factor in politics because governments run on money rather then say, candy or warm feelings.  If they said their major issue was the preserving the one eyed pocket trout the lives in one stream in Utah, it'd involve money.

What are you going on about now.  What I responded to was when you told dps that the tea party isn't about fiscal responsibility.

Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.

Except it's not.

It's a leap from "Fiscally responsible government" to "involving money".  That secret service-hooker scandal "involved money", but only an idiot would think it involved "fiscally responsible government"

[merithyn]

Raz went a little crazy with it, but he has a something of a point.  The Tea Party is not some centralized movement, and can vary region by region and certainly by individual.  That makes them a bit harder to pin down on every issue.

Having said that, the one thing that tends to unite nearly all Tea Party types is the desire to cut (or at least freeze) government spending and influence.

This may be the problem. The self-described Tea Party Republicans around here are primarily socially conservative who's only obvious "platform" is to oust Obama. They occasionally discuss fiscal responsibility, but it almost always involves lowering taxes for everyone and cutting/privatizing all entitlements. Basically, they appear to be fiscal libertarians and social fascists.

[garbon]

Yeah, and you know what?  Everything about the fucking government involves money.  Money is single biggest factor in politics because governments run on money rather then say, candy or warm feelings.  If they said their major issue was the preserving the one eyed pocket trout the lives in one stream in Utah, it'd involve money.

What are you going on about now.  What I responded to was when you told dps that the tea party isn't about fiscal responsibility.

Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.

Except it's not.

It's a leap from "Fiscally responsible government" to "involving money".  That secret service-hooker scandal "involved money", but only an idiot would think it involved "fiscally responsible government"

I'm sorry that my language was not precise.  I meant - if you look at 3 of the 4 items they listed all clearly have to do with fiscal responsibility (though admittedly the economy one less so).  And once again that 4th can't really be determined as the label is too vague.

[dps]

It was a stupid comment on my part. I don't get how women could vote against themselves, but like you say, it doesn't mean that they are stupid.

I think I've posted on this point before, but I'm not exactly convinced that people should vote in their own best interest.  Hypothetical question:  if there was a proposed law that, if enacted, would be of great benefit to you personally, but you sincerely believed would be detrimental to the interests of the country as a whole, would you support or oppose the passage of that law?  If the answer is that you would support it, would you concede that you are being selfish and/or irresponsible?

Also, turn the question around, so that the proposed law is harmful to you personally (in both cases, let's say that any benefit or detriment is strictly financial) but you believe would be beneficial for society as a whole--does that change your answers?

[merithyn]

I think I've posted on this point before, but I'm not exactly convinced that people should vote in their own best interest.  Hypothetical question:  if there was a proposed law that, if enacted, would be of great benefit to you personally, but you sincerely believed would be detrimental to the interests of the country as a whole, would you support or oppose the passage of that law?  If the answer is that you would support it, would you concede that you are being selfish and/or irresponsible?

Also, turn the question around, so that the proposed law is harmful to you personally (in both cases, let's say that any benefit or detriment is strictly financial) but you believe would be beneficial for society as a whole--does that change your answers?

I would vote for the bigger picture. Not just the immediate benefit or detriment for any individual or group, but the long-ranging affects for all.

[MadImmortalMan]

I would vote for the bigger picture. Not just the immediate benefit or detriment for any individual or group, but the long-ranging affects for all.

I think he's trying to say you'd be "voting against yourself" then.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, and you know what?  Everything about the fucking government involves money.  Money is single biggest factor in politics because governments run on money rather then say, candy or warm feelings.  If they said their major issue was the preserving the one eyed pocket trout the lives in one stream in Utah, it'd involve money.

What are you going on about now.  What I responded to was when you told dps that the tea party isn't about fiscal responsibility.

Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.

Except it's not.

It's a leap from "Fiscally responsible government" to "involving money".  That secret service-hooker scandal "involved money", but only an idiot would think it involved "fiscally responsible government"

I'm sorry that my language was not precise.  I meant - if you look at 3 of the 4 items they listed all clearly have to do with fiscal responsibility (though admittedly the economy one less so).  And once again that 4th can't really be determined as the label is too vague.

Not really.  You were right the first time.  They involve money.  Only one of the three actually was about "spending".  It's not really clear how the New Health care law would affect fiscal responsibility in 2010.  So no, most of the Tea Party people weren't not interested in fiscal responsibility in any real concrete sense.  They would like a balanced budget cause that sounds good (especially when it involves tax cuts!), but have only the vaguest idea how that might happen.  They don't want to cut social security, or medicare, or defense.  This makes up the lion's share of the budget.  Mostly they want to cute "Waste", or foreign aid.

[merithyn]

I would vote for the bigger picture. Not just the immediate benefit or detriment for any individual or group, but the long-ranging affects for all.

I think he's trying to say you'd be "voting against yourself" then.

Not necessarily. What may be an immediate detriment to me in the short-term may be a better bet for the long-term.

As an example, the topic of same-sex marriage. For the immediate, it can (and has) caused serious upheaval for the majority of the US. However, the long-term affects - equality for all - are worth the initial upheaval. So, under the assumptions, a gay person shouldn't vote for the right to marry because it would be better, overall, for the status quo to hold. Ultimately, however, that would be a negative for society as a whole.

[Eddie Teach]

I think I've posted on this point before, but I'm not exactly convinced that people should vote in their own best interest.  Hypothetical question:  if there was a proposed law that, if enacted, would be of great benefit to you personally, but you sincerely believed would be detrimental to the interests of the country as a whole, would you support or oppose the passage of that law?  If the answer is that you would support it, would you concede that you are being selfish and/or irresponsible?

Support. 

Selfish, yes, irresponsible, no. Being irresponsible would be supporting bills that were beneficial in the short term but not the long term.

[garbon]

Not really.  You were right the first time.  They involve money.  Only one of the three actually was about "spending".  It's not really clear how the New Health care law would affect fiscal responsibility in 2010.  So no, most of the Tea Party people weren't not interested in fiscal responsibility in any real concrete sense.  They would like a balanced budget cause that sounds good (especially when it involves tax cuts!), but have only the vaguest idea how that might happen.  They don't want to cut social security, or medicare, or defense.  This makes up the lion's share of the budget.  Mostly they want to cute "Waste", or foreign aid.

Dps said that such is what they are about - not that they have concrete/great proposals of how to get there.

[Scipio]

Pretty interesting take from a libertarian. @ scips

It's called sarcasm.  I understand it's all the rage.

I do know that you can't get pregnant without fucking, barring an act of God.

That's factually incorrect, Amski.

I'm not sure what it brings to the conversation, but it's whatever it does bring, it's also incorrect.

Sorry.  Of course, there are all kinds of various artificial regimes for human reproduction, BUT I ASSUMED THAT WE UNDERSTOOD PEOPLE USING BIRTH CONTROL AREN'T TRYING ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTIVE MEANS, YOU CUNT.

[Razgovory]

Not really.  You were right the first time.  They involve money.  Only one of the three actually was about "spending".  It's not really clear how the New Health care law would affect fiscal responsibility in 2010.  So no, most of the Tea Party people weren't not interested in fiscal responsibility in any real concrete sense.  They would like a balanced budget cause that sounds good (especially when it involves tax cuts!), but have only the vaguest idea how that might happen.  They don't want to cut social security, or medicare, or defense.  This makes up the lion's share of the budget.  Mostly they want to cute "Waste", or foreign aid.

Dps said that such is what they are about - not that they have concrete/great proposals of how to get there.

I guess we could also say they are for "peace", and "goodness", and "motherhood", "and not being a zombie" as well, and other vague ideas.  In other words they are for nothing.