Chef Jim Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 But I guarantee you, nowhere in the Republican or Democratic mission statements does it say "we will try to retain power for power's sake". What the mission statement says isn't as important as what is actually done. And that's what appears to be refreshing about the tea party. You don't follow your mission statement we will fire you. There has been too much complacency in this country. It's about time politicians are held accountable. The President is held to two terms, everyone else appears to be there for life.
Rob's House Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 But I guarantee you, nowhere in the Republican or Democratic mission statements does it say "we will try to retain power for power's sake". What the mission statement says isn't as important as what is actually done. To the question at hand, if followed accordingly, what is your stance on the mission statement?
Buftex Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 And that's what appears to be refreshing about the tea party. You don't follow your mission statement we will fire you. There has been too much complacency in this country. It's about time politicians are held accountable. The President is held to two terms, everyone else appears to be there for life. Key word... To the question at hand, if followed accordingly, what is your stance on the mission statement? Eh...it is full of pretty, flowery words, like all mission statements. It serves it's purpose, I suppose. I do find this a little troubling: "We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. "
3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 To the question at hand, if followed accordingly, what is your stance on the mission statement? Did you ever notice how people of certain persuasions refuse to be pinned down? Buffy is pulling a lyrbob (lyrbob's refusal to state his qualification in the real estate and mortgage industries after acting as if he is an expert). Buffy won't answer the question and will try to change the focus while Adam will just say "yes, but..............".
Buftex Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Did you ever notice how people of certain persuasions refuse to be pinned down? Buffy is pulling a lyrbob (lyrbob's refusal to state his qualification in the real estate and mortgage industries after acting as if he is an expert). Buffy won't answer the question and will try to change the focus while Adam will just say "yes, but..............". I said, as a mission statement I have no problem with it. So, I have to agree with everything in it? Okay in that case, I vote "nyet"! I hate it! What exactly is your point? You appear to be beaming with pride, because your party/movement finally has a few coherent sentences strung together to serve as its reason for being. Great! Go team! Edited March 31, 2011 by Buftex
Buftex Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 Smart of you to pick up on that. Even smarter of you to include it!
3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 I said, as a mission statement I have no problem with it. So, I have to agree with everything in it? Okay, if that is the case, I hate it! What exactly is your point? You appear to be beaming with pride, because your party/movement finally has a few coherent sentences strung together. Great! Go team! You have no problem with it? So, in other words you believe in fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets?
Buftex Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) You have no problem with it? So, in other words you believe in fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets? I have no problem with it as a mission statement. It plainly states where the Tea Party (is it a movement or a party?) stands on some fundamental issues. I have already said I have some problems with the content, but that wasn't to your liking. Apparently that is "so liberal" (or whatever you would call it). Edited March 31, 2011 by Buftex
Chef Jim Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 Even smarter of you to include it! In case you didn't know I'm very cynical.
Buftex Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 In case you didn't know I'm very cynical. I really think you are smart!
Gene Frenkle Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 Great mission statement emphasizing the shiny, bright, new, beautiful ideals of the Tea Party movement. Now that some of their first elected officials are not living up to their campaign promises, the necessary addendum to the mission statement is (as Chef so eloquently stated): "(If) you don't follow your mission statement we will fire you". Again, it's all shiny and new, so I withhold judgement until this proves itself one way or another. The problem I have with the Tea Party is the dark underside which many of you like to deny exists. Despite it's seeming focus on the country's financial problems, there seems to be a deep-seeded faith-based element to it. While many of you won't have any problem with this, I hardly see this as an example of getting back to what the Founding Fathers were all about. In a lot of ways I see the Tea Party as a more fiscally responsible wing of the holier-than-thou Republican party, but I do have my biases as far as that stuff goes. I also feel that there is an element of racism in the movement - another thing that many people will deny until they're blue in the face. I think the Tea Party's demographics speak for themselves as far as that stuff goes. It's almost not even worth arguing because it's really just a subjective judgement. All in all, once the shine wears off, I expect the Tea Party to regress toward the mean and blend back into a (possibly) slightly more fiscally conservative Republican Party. Maybe I'm just being cynical.
3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 I have no problem with it as a mission statement. It plainly states where the Tea Party (is it a movement or a party?) stands on some fundamental issues. I have already said I have some problems with the content, but that wasn't to your liking. Apparently that is "so liberal" (or whatever you would call it). Are you referring to the part that says something like "we believe it is possible to know the original intent of the government that our founding fathers......."? The question that I asked you had to do with your believing in fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. You still haven't answered that. All you'll say is that you have no problem with it as a mission statement for the Tea Party. Can you answer my original question? It's a movement named after the Boston Tea Party with tea being an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already".
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx Please read the link to the Tea Party mission statement and debate its merits. No need to try to confuse the issue with terms like "teabaggers" or make claims that it is racist or a bunch of fundamental whacko christians. Debate the mission statement only or be seen as the partisan hack you are. Interesting Mission statement. Much of which I agree with, but I just got done listening to Rep. Mike Pence, who claims to be a Member,go off on a partisan rant about cutting funding for things like planned parenthood that hardly make a dent in the budget. Despite some controversial actions of planned parenthood in regard to the life issue, the majority of which's mission and efforts is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to support parents so that they can successfully raise a healthy child "in pursuit of life liberty and happiness. Also I am confused about the meaning "must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect." One does not necessarily beget the other as seen by all this deficit and spend government over the last 10 years. Until both sides quit taking partisan shots as the poster of this thread suggests all Washington is doing right now is relegating itself to the chattering classes. Until defense spending and medicare is addressed as well as transparency in the tax code... i.e. lowering the rates while eliminating loopholes, the best this does is provide rhetorical cover for the many fake so called tea party supporters. Those that are actually sincere are having their message drowned out by the carpet baggers using it a political foil and little else. P.S. Free markets without effective anti-trust is neither. That is to say government intervention is necessary to provide for an orderly enforcement of rules that allow for free markets to be maintained and not monopolized. Monopolies and oligopolies are by definition an antithesis to obstructionist to the operation of free markets. Hence why government intervention under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is necessary and needed. Too much however and government becomes the problem and in many respects the Federal Government, especially our legislative branch on both sides is useless in my opinion, and only serves as protection for both sides' special interests. Thanks for allowing me to rant. Edited March 31, 2011 by yellowlinesandarmadillos
Gene Frenkle Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 Are you referring to the part that says something like "we believe it is possible to know the original intent of the government that our founding fathers......."? The question that I asked you had to do with your believing in fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. You still haven't answered that. All you'll say is that you have no problem with it as a mission statement for the Tea Party. Can you answer my original question? It's a movement named after the Boston Tea Party with tea being an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already". Hey, if you love the Tea Movement so much, why don't you marry it???
3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 Great mission statement emphasizing the shiny, bright, new, beautiful ideals of the Tea Party movement. Now that some of their first elected officials are not living up to their campaign promises, the necessary addendum to the mission statement is (as Chef so eloquently stated): "(If) you don't follow your mission statement we will fire you". Again, it's all shiny and new, so I withhold judgement until this proves itself one way or another. The problem I have with the Tea Party is the dark underside which many of you like to deny exists. Despite it's seeming focus on the country's financial problems, there seems to be a deep-seeded faith-based element to it. While many of you won't have any problem with this, I hardly see this as an example of getting back to what the Founding Fathers were all about. In a lot of ways I see the Tea Party as a more fiscally responsible wing of the holier-than-thou Republican party, but I do have my biases as far as that stuff goes. I also feel that there is an element of racism in the movement - another thing that many people will deny until they're blue in the face. I think the Tea Party's demographics speak for themselves as far as that stuff goes. It's almost not even worth arguing because it's really just a subjective judgement.All in all, once the shine wears off, I expect the Tea Party to regress toward the mean and blend back into a (possibly) slightly more fiscally conservative Republican Party. Maybe I'm just being cynical. Link? Links? The Tea Party's mission statement clearly states that it has nothing to do with social issues. To say that it is faith based and/or has elements of racism is in my opinion just a canard put out there by the media and left wing nutjobs. Remember the picture in Arizona at a Tea Party rally of the racist person with a rifle? I believe it was NBC pushing the story about racism in the Tea Party. They opined about the white supremacy in the Tea Party. They didn't show the guy's face though. In reality the guy was black.
Chef Jim Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Great mission statement emphasizing the shiny, bright, new, beautiful ideals of the Tea Party movement. Now that some of their first elected officials are not living up to their campaign promises, the necessary addendum to the mission statement is (as Chef so eloquently stated): "(If) you don't follow your mission statement we will fire you". Again, it's all shiny and new, so I withhold judgement until this proves itself one way or another. The problem I have with the Tea Party is the dark underside which many of you like to deny exists. Despite it's seeming focus on the country's financial problems, there seems to be a deep-seeded faith-based element to it. While many of you won't have any problem with this, I hardly see this as an example of getting back to what the Founding Fathers were all about. In a lot of ways I see the Tea Party as a more fiscally responsible wing of the holier-than-thou Republican party, but I do have my biases as far as that stuff goes. I also feel that there is an element of racism in the movement - another thing that many people will deny until they're blue in the face. I think the Tea Party's demographics speak for themselves as far as that stuff goes. It's almost not even worth arguing because it's really just a subjective judgement. All in all, once the shine wears off, I expect the Tea Party to regress toward the mean and blend back into a (possibly) slightly more fiscally conservative Republican Party. Maybe I'm just being cynical. So you're saying the Founding Fathers didn't have a deep seeded faith based element? Where do you get the racism? Edited March 31, 2011 by Chef Jim
LeviF Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 I have a problem with it. What the !@#$ does "fiscal responsibility mean"? Is it "fiscally responsible" to slash away at domestic programs (whatever, fine by me) while continuing to increase military spending and continuing to treat aid to Israel as a 3rd rail (not fine by me)? What constitutes "excessive taxation"? What about "excessive spending"? Seems like there's a lot of room for "tea party" politicians to claim to adhere to this mission statement while not being fiscally responsible at all. I'm sure everyone on this board is against "excessive taxation" and "excessive spending," the question lies in how we define such things. The mission statement goes on to talk about how they want "Constitutionally limited government" but there are vastly different interpretations of the Constitution even among those who are the very depositories of the laws: courts and judges. Frankly, the last things I want are more lawmakers who polish their **** with terms like "fiscally responsible" when, in reality, they're spending more and more money on a military that intervenes virtually everywhere and a tiny country that can spend its own money on their military. Jeez, and I haven't even mentioned the "family values" bull **** that so many "tea party" politicians cling to. Sure, the market can be free, but your bodies and bedrooms can't! !@#$ that. Tom's not the only one who's ornery today.
3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 Hey, if you love the Tea Movement so much, why don't you marry it??? Your first post in this thread was somewhat reasonable and I answered you accordingly. You then have to post crap like this quoting my response to a different poster? http://www.google.com/search?q=tourettes+guy&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en Is this you?
Gene Frenkle Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 So you're saying the Founding Fathers didn't have a deep seeded faith based element? Where do you get the racism? Yes, I think the Founding Fathers thought it important to keep religion separate from government. Racisim implied by the demographics and some of the racist propaganda infecting the internet which I believe originates anonymously from people involved in the movement. Like I said, just my opinion, which is clearly subjective. Your first post in this thread was somewhat reasonable and I answered you accordingly. You then have to post crap like this quoting my response to a different poster? http://www.google.co...&rlz=1I7ADBF_en Is this you? No, meatball, I just saw you ranting obsessively about this bulletproof mission statement you just read and thought I'd !@#$ with you a bit.
Recommended Posts