Tea Party The New Civil Rights Movement?

[colourwheel]

Just for Troaches a non editorial on tea party new.... :rolleyes:

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/04/tea_party_extreme_social_agend.html

 

Ironic they want to defund "Planned Parenthood" yet in some states controled by tea party advocates force women to have to undergo two unnecessary transvaginal probes to just take a pill. Just imagine if legislation was put on the table for men to have a tube stuck up their penis just to take viagra... Don't see that happening but maybe that will give men in power an idea about what they are forcing women to do in some states already now.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/12/2141521/scott-walker-abortion-clinics-ultrasound/

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/scott-walker-recall-tea-party

Edited June 24, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

The only link contained in that article between social policy and the Tea Party is a quote from Harry Reid blaming the congress's inability to pass a bill on the "Tea Party extreme social agenda". It is an opinion expressed by Harry Reid, and nothing more.

 

In other words, it is another editorial.

[colourwheel]

Troaches I am not going to argue with you anymore on this you are obviously not going to see things the way I see things and couldn't hardly even begin to understand how things are for me as female immigrant who is bisexual. But you might want to ask yourself this though, how you would feel about the tea party if you were in my shoes?

 

Just because something is an editorial you should just totally dismiss the entire thing and think of it as complete fiction? I think you are missing the point about these articles regaurdless if you think they are all editorials.

Edited June 24, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

I don't think an editorial should necessarily be dismissed, but it should be read critically and considered for what it is: an opinion. The opinion expressed may be well crafted and convincing, or it may be a deceptive and misleading characterization. In all of those examples the person who expressed the opinion was opposed to the fiscal policies that the Tea Party represents and was associating negatively perceived social policies with the more popular and accepted fiscal policies in an attempt to discredit them. I consider this a form of deceptive journalism, or in the case of Reid deceptive politics.

[colourwheel]

 

I don't think an editorial should necessarily be dismissed, but it should be read critically and considered for what it is: an opinion.

 

Just like your posts in this thread are just as much as an opinion as an editorial...

 

Maybe we should let others be the judge to decide for themselves since it's clear you can't begin to understand things my way and neither can i see things your way...

Edited June 24, 2013 by colourwheel

[Morrovvind]

The tea party, in it's core from what you describe TRoaches, seems like something that should appeal to Colourwheel. Wouldn't less government oversight mean that they have less influence on social policy and therefore less discrimination of LGBT through policies like having gay marriage be illegal? I think that's a state level issue, though, and not federal, so it's the states that have that discrimination I think, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

But the less military budget seems like a definite rallying point for most people, except maybe those with careers in that field.

 

I still think government has a role to play such as keeping certain regulations in place like clean water, clean restaurants, environmental protection, so there's definitely some middle ground between huge government and very little government, it's just a matter of striking a good balance and eliminating the bloat while keeping things essential to a safe society.

 

This is all my opinion and ponderings anyway, take with grain of salt.

[colourwheel]

 

Wouldn't less government oversight mean that they have less influence on social policy and therefore less discrimination of LGBT through policies like having gay marriage be illegal? I think that's a state level issue, though, and not federal, so it's the states that have that discrimination I think, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

That is a state level issue but still discrimination. You have to understand that states controled by republican governors have gerrymandered the districts in a way that the only things their representatives have to worry about is being primaried by their tea party caucuses to lose their jobs. State by state in almost every totally republican control states, politicians representing the tea party have been systematically destroying abortion rights, railing against the right for gays and lesbians to marry, fracturing equality in the work place for women, and halting immigration...

 

I still think government has a role to play such as keeping certain regulations in place like clean water, clean restaurants, environmental protection, so there's definitely some middle ground between huge government and very little government, it's just a matter of striking a good balance and eliminating the bloat while keeping things essential to a safe society.

 

Here lies problem... you can't have small government that regulates clean water, clean restaurants, environmental protection, etc... keeping things essential safe for society in this age anymore. America has tried that when george w bush was in power controling both the house and the senate...

 

In my opinion, the world has become too complex for small government to work in a country as big as the United states to be successful in the long run. Smaller government only leads to deregulation. As ironic that the tea party wants to have deregulation they have people in power who have passed legislation forcing women to be vaginally probed just to take a pill...

 

 

The tea party, in it's core from what you describe TRoaches, seems like something that should appeal to Colourwheel.

 

The Tea Parties Core message sound great but the people who they advocate in office resonates extreme social ideology to even make life long registered republicans to even turn Democratic or independent.

 

The modern republican party in America is not what it use to be. the republican party might as well be called the tea party because it has forced old school republican to get on board with any and every social and fiscal agenda in fear of them being primaried by their tea party caucuses. The Democratic party has actually become more like the republican party i use to know when i was growing up and todays American Republican party has become the fringe of a conservative movement bent on extreme social ideology regaurdless if it's on their public platform or not...

Edited June 24, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

State by state in almost every totally republican control states, politicians representing the tea party have been systematically destroying abortion rights, railing against the right for gays and lesbians to marry, fracturing equality in the work place for women, and halting immigration...

Can you provide an example of a state where this has happened? Truthfully, you should be able to give at least a dozen or so examples given that your claim is that it has happened in "almost every totally republican controlled state".

 

 

As ironic that the tea party wants to have deregulation they have people in power who have passed legislation forcing women to be vaginally probed just to take a pill...

 

The tea party, like any populist movement, has at this point gained enough attention that politicians who do not really adhere to the core philosophy are associating themselves with it. Government intrusion into any medical procedure would be in absolute opposition to the core values that the tea party represents. Referring to this as a part of the tea party platform is like saying that the Russian gulag was an inherent and essential principle of Marxism, when most scholars agree that the Soviet Union was not a true Marxist state despite claiming to be.

 

 

The modern republican party in America is not what it use to be.

 

This is true, and the tea party movement began as a response to this.

 

 

the republican party might as well be called the tea party because it has forced old school republican to get on board with any and every social and fiscal agenda in fear of them being primaried by their tea party caucuses.

 

You are looking at it backwards. The tea party did not force the Republicans to adopt a backwards social agenda. Rather, the tea party movement, which was perceived as a threat to the Republican/Democrat hegemony has been co opted and subverted by the Republicans. At this point people attach themselves to the phrase "tea party" in order to gain votes, despite holding positions that are oppositional to the movement's core philosophy.

[Lord Garon]

The tea party, in it's core from what you describe TRoaches, seems like something that should appeal to Colourwheel. Wouldn't less government oversight mean that they have less influence on social policy and therefore less discrimination of LGBT through policies like having gay marriage be illegal? I think that's a state level issue, though, and not federal, so it's the states that have that discrimination I think, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

But the less military budget seems like a definite rallying point for most people, except maybe those with careers in that field.

 

I still think government has a role to play such as keeping certain regulations in place like clean water, clean restaurants, environmental protection, so there's definitely some middle ground between huge government and very little government, it's just a matter of striking a good balance and eliminating the bloat while keeping things essential to a safe society.

 

This is all my opinion and ponderings anyway, take with grain of salt.

 

"... a state level issue, though, and not a federal..." A pillar of Tea Party beliefs. Local, democratic governance is what its all about. State and local government is now secondary to the Federal government. The Federal government has a very limited scope, Constitutionally. But it is now involved in every aspect of society (Primarily for one, single reason; see below.). One of few agreed upon issues in our Tea Party is the mission statement; it includes the phrase, "...starting with our county!" We spend most of our actual time and effort at the local and state level.

 

<my opinions only>

 

One reason the states lost power is the 17th amendment; I help support repeal efforts. There may be issues with the original Constitutional articles, but simply eliminating State authority is not the answer.

 

How has the Federal government weasled it's way into areas not specifically allowed by the Constitution? The Santa Clause: the adverse impact on interstate trade exception. Unless you've looked, you can't believe how many federal laws begin with (are justified being enacted by) the phrase, "Due to the adverse impact upon interstate trade..." It's unbelievable. As a topical example, most federal abortion laws start with that phrase. The Clinton Crime Bill starts with it. An enormous amount of federal power has been gained via the interstate trade exception; its how Congress enacts laws that it would otherwise have no authority to enact. One of the simplest ways to stop our out-of-control Federal government would be a requirement for Congress to actually show the adverse impact instead of just rubber-stamping that phrase on pieces of legislation. If you want a succinct, simple shutdown from your elected representatives, ask them to speak for limiting the interstate trade exception. NO ONE that I can find will even discuss it. It would remove an enormous amount of power from Washington; not even the "Tea Party advocate" legislators want that to happen.

 

</my opinions only>

 

Local control and power is central to many Tea Party beliefs, as is taking back that power. The only reason that State and local governments have so little power over things is because the Feds have taken it away, and WE let them do it. Who could protect the environment better; local citizens who are directly impacted, or Washington politicians on a SIG payroll? I used to teach in Special Education. Education policy is one of the few things that have been left up to the states. Until a couple decades ago. Now the Feds are influencing local school systems by way of conditional funding. Not laws. Money. It only adds up to about 10% of a school district's budget, but cash-strapped districts need it and impose strict requirements on schools and staff to meet conditional Federal funding requirements. If the Feds can't legislate it, they buy it. With our tax money.

 

People rail against Congressmen and Congresswomen for being able to enact laws they disagree with. In some cases, Congress has the Constitutional directive to do that. In many other cases, they simply do not. Congress takes as much power and authority as it can get away with; they WANT to be able to influence individuals, to further their own ends. Again, this is backasswards. Citizens should perceive that their State and Local governments have primacy regarding their community issues. One Constitutional directive Congress has is maintaining the Postal System. How much concerning that do you hear about? Almost NOTHING that the Feds do, save military and foreign relations (and the Post Office), could not be done by state and local government on a much more customized basis which caters to the desires and needs of local citizens. Remember, we didn't have a personal federal income tax until early in the 20th century. Why do you think that was? I can't remember who it was that said (something like), "A population of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

 

Well, the wolves are howling at the castle gate. What is to be done now?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Lord Garon

[colourwheel]

 

Can you provide an example of a state where this has happened?

 

Alabama, Virginia, North Dakota, and Arkansas are just 4 states railing against abortion rights restricting to the point where clinic are force to close down.

 

A wave of state level activism against abortion rights has been under way following the birth of the conservative tea party movement. In the 2010 elections, tea partyers won big in state legislatures, many of them driven to enact abortion restrictions soon after taking office eradicating clinics state by state.

 

2013 will beat out 2011 for the number of restrictions passed in state legislators. It's only june and it's already on track to do so. Also In 2012 even more tea party members and supporters were elected to state legislatures.

 

Pay equity for women opposed by entire Texas Republican congressional delegation...

 

the Louisiana Legislature allow discrimination against gays and lesbians. a House committee rejected a bill by Rep. Austin Badon (D-New Orleans) that would have banned state officials from discriminating against gay and transgender employees.

 

These are just some of the things your tea party delegates are actually doing in some states they control, If this is the trend how they govern state by state I can only imagine how it would be if they controlled the federal government completely...