SkinsHokieFan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The "fiscal conservative" Ron Paul/Rick Santelli tea party left long long ago. It is very much the "teo-o-con" movement, which is a shame. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100501491.html A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, reflecting the complex - and sometimes contradictory - blend of bedfellows in the American conservative movement. The poll released Tuesday, by the nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute, comes as the tea party's composition and potential impact is still under hot debate. Experts disagreed about what the poll meant, with some saying it reveals serious fissures between social and fiscal conservatives and others saying the two movements can find common ground on subjects such as limiting public funding for abortion. Institute chief executive Robert Jones said the poll, which was funded by the Ford Foundation, aimed to clarify the relationship between the two groups. "The way the data looks, if this is a marriage of convenience, it's one that would be against the law. The relatives are too close," said Jones, a self-described progressive. The survey, which polled 3,013 people by telephone over four days in early September and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent, also found: * The percentage of Americans who say they're part of the tea party movement is 11 percent - about half the size of the group who say they are "part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement." * Fifty-five percent of people who say they are part of the tea party agree that "America has always been and is currently a Christian nation" - 6 points more than the percentage of self-described Christian conservatives who would say that. Click link for the rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuv Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I would much rather social issues be relegated to the states than have any discussion on the federal level. If I were an atheist and I wanted to live amongst fellow atheists who happened to gather in [insert state here], I would have that option. Alternatively, a Jesus-freak like myself could choose to flee from that state and move to [insert Jesus-freak state here.] When it's on a federal level, there's nowhere else to go. In short, I hope that's what the majority of Tea Party folks think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I think it is clear that what started as an organic "small government" movement has shifted dramatically to to being anti-spending, socially conservative, religious movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I would much rather social issues be relegated to the states than have any discussion on the federal level. If I were an atheist and I wanted to live amongst fellow atheists who happened to gather in [insert state here], I would have that option. Alternatively, a Jesus-freak like myself could choose to flee from that state and move to [insert Jesus-freak state here.] Yeah we tried that, but it didn't work out because people wanted blacks to only live with other blacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I would much rather social issues be relegated to the states than have any discussion on the federal level. If I were an atheist and I wanted to live amongst fellow atheists who happened to gather in [insert state here], I would have that option. Alternatively, a Jesus-freak like myself could choose to flee from that state and move to [insert Jesus-freak state here.] When it's on a federal level, there's nowhere else to go.In short, I hope that's what the majority of Tea Party folks think. so ... you hope the tea party doesn't believe in the first amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 No linkie? How do they define religious right?...or do they leave it to the responder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Wow...who could have guessed that a movement with Sarah Palin as its standard bearer is - at its heart - full of social conservatives. Shouldn't ABCQDWQCOWBOY be here to explain how this is really a libertarian movement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuv Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 so ... you hope the tea party doesn't believe in the first amendment. Seriously?! Where do you come up with this crap? I never said anything even remotely like that. The majority of the people in a state will vote for the representatives to their state legislature that they want... who in turn make the laws of the state... If I live in that state and I don't like it, then I can move to another state... why is this so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It was a libertarian movement until the much larger Neo-con group sunk it's teeth in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Seriously?! Where do you come up with this crap? I never said anything even remotely like that. The majority of the people in a state will vote for the representatives to their state legislature that they want... who in turn make the laws of the state...If I live in that state and I don't like it, then I can move to another state... why is this so hard to understand? i think it's the part where you said "THIS place is for people of THIS religion." whereas the first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuv Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 That's not what I said. I said that if I chose to, I could move to a state where the majority of the people shared my views. And anyone else could do the very same thing, if they chose to. Or.. they could choose to live in a state where they hate everything the elected representatives stand for... although I don't know why anyone would want to do that. However, if it's on the federal level, and I, or you, or anyone else don't like it, where do we go? Where else is there real freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 LOL. You're surprised? The tea party, like the libertarian party (who are at the core of this insanity), whores itself out because they need more people. And like the Libertarians who deny that the libertarian party platform includes insane ideas such as complete de-regulation of everything and the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service, they water down their message to attract more members. Now they want to complain? The tea party and libertarians are still looking for a charismatic leader who can channel all of their anger and present their simplistic ideology and narrow minded solutions to the American public in an effective way. What scares me is they might find him and he will turn out to be someone like this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I smelled a rat from the Tea Party soon after they gained national prominence. This libertarian has nothing to do with them, and never will (unless there are DRASTIC changes in their practices). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 That didn't take long. So sad. So pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 That's not what I said. I said that if I chose to, I could move to a state where the majority of the people shared my views. And anyone else could do the very same thing, if they chose to. Or.. they could choose to live in a state where they hate everything the elected representatives stand for... although I don't know why anyone would want to do that.However, if it's on the federal level, and I, or you, or anyone else don't like it, where do we go? Where else is there real freedom? i'm afraid i don't see your point at all. seriously: what are you talking about? you are free to move to any place in this country you like. are you complaining that people talk about issues? that you are forced to endure opinions that differ from your own if you turn on the tv? i'm asking in all seriousness because i can't even figure out what you are fearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuv Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I smelled a rat from the Tea Party soon after they gained national prominence. This libertarian has nothing to do with them, and never will (unless there are DRASTIC changes in their practices). How do you feel about Mad Mike comparing libertarians to Nazis? Is that a valid comparison of how you feel? Frankly, I find it as shocking as Hitler mustaches on Obama posters, but it's always been ok for the left to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuv Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 i'm afraid i don't see your point at all. seriously: what are you talking about? you are free to move to any place in this country you like.are you complaining that people talk about issues? that you are forced to endure opinions that differ from your own if you turn on the tv? My point is none of these social issues are the jurisdiction of the federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 How do you feel about Mad Mike comparing libertarians to Nazis? Is that a valid comparison of how you feel?Frankly, I find it as shocking as Hitler mustaches on Obama posters, but it's always been ok for the left to do it. Ironically Mad Mike is one of the bigger neo-cons on here For big government, and 100 percent behind the GWOT. As for the Tea Party itself, the fiscal message it had in the early part of 2009 was the big draw. During the health care debate and over the winter months it morphed into something far different. Today you can't recgonize what it was when Ron Paul started having Tea Parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuv Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Ironically Mad Mike is one of the bigger neo-cons on hereFor big government, and 100 percent behind the GWOT. As for the Tea Party itself, the fiscal message it had in the early part of 2009 was the big draw. During the health care debate and over the winter months it morphed into something far different. Today you can't recgonize what it was when Ron Paul started having Tea Parties I am honestly shocked, lol. Bad me for immediately assuming the Hitler reference came from the left! Side note, what's GWOT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 I am honestly shocked, lol. Bad me for immediately assuming the Hitler reference came from the left!Side note, what's GWOT? GWOT= Global war on terror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Frankly, I find it as shocking as Hitler mustaches on Obama posters, but it's always been ok for the left to do it. The left was painting Hitler mustaches on Obama? The trend of demonization is definitely out of control. I think it's partly the blogosphere, partly the shock jock mentality we have to a lot of our political reporting, and just the fact that times are rough and we're all very frustrated. However, make sure you include the Right when you throw out your aspersions. After all, the right has called the left, the enemy within, terrorists, commies, pinkos, anti-American, nazi, etc. nonstop for the entirety of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 How do you feel about Mad Mike comparing libertarians to Nazis? Is that a valid comparison of how you feel?Frankly, I find it as shocking as Hitler mustaches on Obama posters, but it's always been ok for the left to do it. The only comparison I am making is that both parties were born from anger and present simplistic "solutions" to a nation looking for answers. Hitler wasn't a product of the National Socialist Party. He was a product of the social anger of his day and he used that anger to rise to power and implement those "solutions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 My point is none of these social issues are the jurisdiction of the federal government. how do you define "social issue"? the constitution and bill of rights have an awful lot to say on "social issues". to say that it is not the purview of the Federal Government is pretty much a slap in the face of the founding fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 How do you feel about Mad Mike comparing libertarians to Nazis? Is that a valid comparison of how you feel?Frankly, I find it as shocking as Hitler mustaches on Obama posters, but it's always been ok for the left to do it. Mad Mike is on the left now? :ols: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.