published Thursday, May 16th, 2013

Right Side Round Table: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?

Question of the week: What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?

Drew Johnson

Editor of the Free Press opinion page

The tea party movement's roots are simple and unambiguous: In February 2009, CNBC talking head Rick Santelli, in an outburst of frustration, called for a modern day version of the Boston Tea Party in response to the "government promoting bad behavior" by passing out taxpayer-funded bailouts. He was concerned that working Americans would end up carrying the load for bad decisions and bad policies. As it turns out, of course, Santelli was right.

When Santelli's rant went viral, it prompted millions of Americans to join together in tea party groups in every state to protest bailouts and the growth of the federal government.

Since then, tea parties have succeeded in advancing their message of limited, responsible government in city councils, county commissions and state legislatures across America. Even the federal government has felt the impact of the tea party's powerful confederation of small-government advocates.

Despite the tea party's undeniable success, however, its future is uncertain.

The tea party movement was established to unite Americans behind a small, simple set of very, very popular principles: The government should be smaller, spend less and abide by the Constitution.

Since each local tea party group is its own entity, rather than a series of franchises parroting the concerns of a national Tea Party, they differ from place to place. As a result, tea parties have splintered into hundreds of groups with a range of different, even unrelated, concerns. As some tea parties became involved with matters other than reducing wasteful spending and keeping taxes as low as possible, their numbers and influence began to diminish.

The issue began soon after the tea party was founded, when politicians such as Sarah Palin and a number of conservative organizations attempted to co-opt tea parties for their own political ambitions or financial gain, often using socially conservative messaging to draw additional elements of the Christian right into the tea party ranks.

Adding social issues and religion to the tea party was a little like putting a stripper on a golf course. A lot of people enjoyed it, but a lot of people were offended by it, too. It didn't serve much of a purpose, distracted everyone and got in the way of what folks were actually there to accomplish.

Gallup polls routinely find that 60 percent of Americans believe that government is too intrusive and powerful. The tea party movement should be an inviting place to the substantial majority of Americans that believes the government is too large and spends too much -- and it would be if the tea party's focus remained on those issues.

Unfortunately, the tendency of some tea party groups to take controversial stances or embrace obscure topics, ranging from opposing gay marriage and abortion to fighting against Agenda 21 and Sharia law, chases away many, if not most, of the tea party's potential supporters.

Now the tea party movement is at a crossroads. Which way tea party leaders decide to go from here will determine whether the tea party remains a thriving, powerful force that shapes policy decisions and determines electoral outcomes or withers into a historical footnote -- or worse, becomes a social club of like-minded people, powerless to effect change.

By returning the tea party's focus to the low-tax, limited-government issues that unite so many Americans, rather than remaining mired in religious and social issues that divide us all, the most influential grassroots political effort in decades can remain a viable force for generations to come.

— The Free Press


Ben Cunningham

President of the Nashville Tea Party

The potential is there for a very bright future for the Tea Party in general and citizen activism in particular. The tools available to lobby and organize are growing and the cost is minimal. A computer and a little time is enough to turn motivated citizens into effective activists who can change government at all levels.

The tea party is a return to our Revolutionary roots and it feels good. The essential tea party idea is that, ultimately, only the individual citizen can hold government accountable. Only an involved citizenry can effectively limit the power lust of elected officials.

The attempt by the IRS to target tea party groups is serious and must be stopped, but it is only the latest hurdle we have learned to conquer. All the attempts at demonization and marginalization by our opponents have failed. We understand our obligation and our power to make government our servant and to challenge anyone who would make government our master.


Mark West

President of the Chattanooga Tea Party

The tea party movement burst onto the national scene and in our local community with a big splash in April 2009. Americans stood up to voice their disapproval of government overtaxation and overreach.

Those of us involved had little or no political experience. We simply loved our country and saw it quickly slipping to a point of no return -- burdened under unprecedented debt, skyrocketing spending, bureaucratic incompetence and political corruption.

Four years into our movement have we made a difference and where do we go from here?

There is no doubt that the tea party has impacted Washington. Have we achieved our goals of limiting government, reducing spending and taxes? NO! But are we making a difference? The IRS scandal should prove that a corrupt administration has been exposed for who they are, thanks to the tea party.

Closer to home the Chattanooga Tea Party seeks similar goals for our community: limiting government, reducing spending and exposing corruption.

Ultimately though, the tea party is about grassroots engagement. America has slipped because individually we have forsaken our civic duties. Government is you and me. If we fail to engage, we get what we have today.

So, will the tea party be here four years from now? I'm less concerned with the answer to that question than I am with whether our nation, as we know it, will be here.

39
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
daytonsdarwin said...

The Tea Party has become a religious-right fanatical Christian Taliban in many areas. Look at Mark West, Ken Orr, Huckabee, Santorum, Palin, and many others who have turned a political party into a new inquisition of Old Testament vengeance and a national crusade for a Christian theocracy.

While they cry freedom and liberty, it's become a burning-bush smoke-screen to push religious agendas and doctrine.

May 16, 2013 at 8:24 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Rand Paul is wooing Evangelicals as we speak.

May 16, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Yes, Rand Paul also called for drones to be used in law enforcement; another uptick in the militarization of police.

Ron Paul also had Gary North as an adviser. Gary North has called for and supports Christian Reconstruction, a theological America by Christian elite who condone stoning, slavery, and Old Testament law.

May 16, 2013 at 8:51 a.m.
Stewwie said...

Double D,

Your psychosis has been duly noted.

May 16, 2013 at 8:53 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Why would Rand Paul woo Evangelicals, Stewwie, if not to promise pursuing their social agenda? After all, didn't a member of the local Tea Party post right here on the TFP a list of Tea Party goals that included imposing sectarian religious views? This has been going on since Reagan; the GOP enlisted the support of Pat Robertson and Billy Graham, and using social issues got conservative Christians in the middle class to vote against their own economic best interests. They then went on to destroy the middle class completely. Of course, without achieving a single social goal demanded by the conservatives. Now we live with the biggest unbalance in wealth holdings since the time of the robber barons, and the past five administrations (except Clinton) raised the deficit enormously.

May 16, 2013 at 9:04 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

You can always tell a bible thumper, but you can't tell him much.

"The best cure for Christianity is read the Bible." Mark Twain

While that is true, Mr. Twain didn't count of the lack of reading comprehension, reason and logic of your typical thumper.

May 16, 2013 at 9:10 a.m.
Stewwie said...

[Why would Rand Paul woo Evangelicals, Stewwie, if not to promise pursuing their social agenda?]

Maybe he realizes that without the Evangelical vote, the Republicans won't stand a chance.

[After all, didn't a member of the local Tea Party post right here on the TFP a list of Tea Party goals that included imposing sectarian religious views?]

Imposing? Did he say he supports a law that forces people to become Christians? No. However, he supports crafting laws that apply Biblical principles. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of laws already do that.

[This has been going on since Reagan; the GOP enlisted the support of Pat Robertson and Billy Graham, and using social issues got conservative Christians in the middle class to vote against their own economic best interests.]

"Against their own economic best interests"? False.

[They then went on to destroy the middle class completely.]

False.

[Of course, without achieving a single social goal demanded by the conservatives.]

Not a single one? Hmmmmm. Either way, maybe the Democrats had something to do with that?

[Now we live with the biggest unbalance in wealth holdings since the time of the robber barons, and the past five administrations (except Clinton) raised the deficit enormously.]

Maybe if King Obama would champion reasonable policies to get people back to work then we could start reducing the wealth gap. Instead, he is satisfied with the entitlement society that we have become with more people than ever dependent on the government. Under Bush and a Republican Congress, we had full employment, but today we are still stuck with too high of an unemployment and underemployment rate. As for deficits, Obama is the torchbearer for spending money we don't have. So much for his half-hearted promise of cutting the deficit in half. He is proving his incompetence with each passing day.

May 16, 2013 at 10:52 a.m.
nowfedup said...

The prime issue in the big whine by Tea Potty-et al and all is NOT the IRS, the CORE issue is the 150% absurdity of "non profit 501 etc's established as NON political organizations whom will NOT state whose money they get. BOTH sides are up to neck in that horror. A huge insult to citizens to state "we are NOT political blah blah" whether it be lily white (skin and hair), Roves 501 or Sorso on the left. Can any sane literate person honestly buy into the BIG lie they are not money laundering machines for political groups?

So Congress, let's first ask why you shout, whine and yell about "integrity of government" when you feed at the trough of 501 NOT set up to be political? Integrity. honesty, etc, of the people are strange words to here form DC gang of 535 (perhaps 10% honest on best day)a and their supporters. The whole thing is one giant fraud and supported by world class hypocrites on both sides without the "integrity" to get "non profit, tax exempt, blah blah's removed. So big whine about IRS is small stuff is simply another bleating whines of self serving snake oil sales types to cover up their own lack of ethics,yea they are NOT politically, only social,educationally there for good of nation, and pigs fly south each fall.

May 16, 2013 at 11:14 a.m.
acerigger said...

"The deficit this year is projected to be about 5 percent of GDP. It's come down by nearly 5 percentage points in the last four years. That’s the most rapid pace of deficit reduction the United States has seen since the end of World War II. The reason we're seeing this is in part due to the recovery of the economy, but also in part because the President has already signed into law $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction, including $1.4 trillion of spending cuts through the continuing resolutions and Budget Control Act, and another $600 billion of revenue from high-income households in the tax agreement and then the associated intrasavings.

So that $2.5 trillion gets you more than halfway to the $4 trillion that you need to stabilize your debt over the long term, and it actually has been sufficient to be bringing your deficit down quite strongly over the short run." Jason Furman http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/08/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-federal-controller-omb-danny-wer

May 16, 2013 at 11:20 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Although it is a long way and the steps are very small, Obama HAS been reducing the deficit. And yes, there is no longer a middle class. It went by the wayside when corporations took control.

As far as imposing religion, your statement confirms this:

However, he supports crafting laws that apply Biblical principles.

What biblical principles? Ten commandments? Old Testament? Or do we get to choose? The fight against marriage equality is a good example. There is no secular reason to oppose marriage equality, so I have to assume that the Tea Party opposes it because it is against their religious views.

Lots of laws already do that.

I can't think of a single law that is uniquely Christian in origin.

Maybe if King Obama would champion reasonable policies to get people back to work then we could start reducing the wealth gap.

He has been. In spite of every effort by the GOP to get in the way. Which they freely admitted.

May 16, 2013 at 11:21 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"Against their own economic best interests"? False."

Explain what the Lower and Middle class stand to gain from a party that supports limited government restrictions on banks and big businesses, cutting safety net programs like Welfare, food stamps, and SS, repealing Obamcare, the elimination of programs like Head Start, private school "vouchers", tax cuts on the wealthy, tax increases for the poor/middle class, cuts to Planned Parenthood, breaking up unions, a lower minimum wage...should I go on?

All of those things are basic WingNut/TeaBagger policy. If an individual that is in the lower to middle class votes for those policies, they are voting against their own economic interests.

May 16, 2013 at 11:52 a.m.
Handleit said...

Once again I say this would be a great time to revamp the tax systen in this country. Part of proof is all this arguing by tax exempt political groups. The tea party is not a social group. They support to many people running for office. That makes them a political party. Same thing for the Republicans and Democrats. No exemptions for anyone or any group, and that includes churches.

May 16, 2013 at 11:54 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Stop the tax exemptions for all churches and religious institutions. Subject all religious organizations to the same property, business, and personal taxes as every one else. Let Jesus and his posse do some rendering unto Caesar for a change.

May 16, 2013 at 12:19 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[What biblical principles? Ten commandments? Old Testament? Or do we get to choose?]

What does it matter which ones?

[The fight against marriage equality is a good example. There is no secular reason to oppose marriage equality, so I have to assume that the Tea Party opposes it because it is against their religious views.]

So you think it's okay for gays to "impose" their belief that marriage should be open to all, but it's not okay for Christians to "impose" their belief that marriage is limited to a man and a woman? How hypocritical. In the end, someone is "imposing" on somebody else. That's the way it is.

[I can't think of a single law that is uniquely Christian in origin.]

So what's the problem then? All I said was it's okay to apply Biblical principles to craft laws. A lot of those principles are probably shared with other religions/ideas as well. So what? As an atheist, you are against any form of religious influence in the public sphere. Looking at our nation's history, there is clearly no intent for there to be a government that is devoid of religious influence.

[He has been. In spite of every effort by the GOP to get in the way. Which they freely admitted.]

The presence of the Republicans in the House is actually helping him look better than he really is. He is unable to ram through any more "pass it then we'll read it" kinds of laws.

[All of those things are basic WingNut/TeaBagger policy. If an individual that is in the lower to middle class votes for those policies, they are voting against their own economic interests.]

Easy, the middle class doesn't normally benefit from any of those things that you listed. Obamacare is an impending disaster. Premiums are going to be jacked up next year and it will send us into another recession unless something is changed. The lower class, on the other hand, does benefit from those things you mentioned. And those folks also vote Democratic. So I don't see how conservatives are voting against their own economic interests.

May 16, 2013 at 2:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"What does it matter which ones?"

That's the point.

"So you think it's okay for gays to "impose" their belief that marriage should be open to all, but it's not okay for Christians to "impose" their belief that marriage is limited to a man and a woman?*

The latter is called discrimination. The former is called equality. You've cast your lot for discrimination. Marriage equality isn't imposing anything on you. However, marriage inequality (your belief) is. One side gives equal marriage rights to everyone. The other doesn't.

"How hypocritical."

You obviously don't know what that word means because you are one.

"In the end, someone is "imposing" on somebody else. That's the way it is."

Wrong. You can keep your belief on gay marriage. Homosexuals getting married has no bearing on your beliefs. However, the problem arises when your religious beliefs are legislated into law. That's unconstitutional and discriminatory. Homosexual marriage is not imposing anything on anyone.

"As an atheist, you are against any form of religious influence in the public sphere."

That's a straw man argument. Religious influence is inevitable in a country that is over 80% religious. Keep the religion out of the government and off the taxpayers tab. That's the First Amendment.

"All I said was it's okay to apply Biblical principles to craft laws."

No, it is not. It's unconstitutional. First Amendment.

"A lot of those principles are probably shared with other religions/ideas as well."

That fact undermines your point. The laws in the United States ARE NOT based on biblical principles or any religious principles.

"Looking at our nation's history, there is clearly no intent for there to be a government that is devoid of religious influence."

Then why is there no mention of any "religious influence" in the Constitution? Why is the Constitution a secular document? Why did the Founding Fathers go to great lengths to make sure the United States government was founded on secular, inclusive ideals?

"The presence of the Republicans in the House is actually helping him look better than he really is."

The epitome of delusion.

May 16, 2013 at 2:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie (continued),

"Easy, the middle class doesn't normally benefit from any of those things that you listed."

You're insane.

"Obamacare is an impending disaster."

Not for people that already have insurance and the poor.

"Premiums are going to be jacked up next year and it will send us into another recession unless something is changed."

You're making this up as you go along.

"The lower class, on the other hand, does benefit from those things you mentioned. And those folks also vote Democratic."

Not exclusively. And those are the people that I'm talking about. The 15-20% of low income people that still vote Republican are voting against their own economic interests.

"So I don't see how conservatives are voting against their own economic interests."

Then you must be illiterate because I laid it out you.

May 16, 2013 at 2:40 p.m.
klifnotes said...

daytonsdarwin said... The Tea Party has become a religious-right fanatical Christian Taliban in many areas. Look at Mark West, Ken Orr, Huckabee, Santorum, Palin, and many others who have turned a political party into a new inquisition of Old Testament vengeance and a national crusade for a Christian theocracy.

I can't agree with the above paragraph more!! Many, if not most or even all, tea party groups deserved to be placed under closer scrutiny, and not just by the IRS, but monitored as official hate groups too. The local on is no exception.

The terms conservartive _ patriot, fighting for states rights and a host of other terms used became a cover for intolerance of anyone and everyone who were different, didn't share their beliefs or challenged them.

May 16, 2013 at 3:13 p.m.
klifnotes said...

Another myth is that the tea party began in 2009 as a grassroots organization critical of the government.

According to a February 2013 article @ the Huffington Post, this is not true:

excerpt:

A new academic study confirms that front groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers planned the formation of the Tea Party movement more than a decade before it exploded onto the U.S. political scene.

Far from a genuine grassroots uprising, this astroturf effort was curated by wealthy industrialists years in advance. Many of the anti-science operatives who defended cigarettes are currently deploying their tobacco-inspired playbook internationally to evade accountability for the fossil fuel industry's role in driving climate disruption.

The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health, traces the roots of the Tea Party's anti-tax movement back to the early 1980s when tobacco companies began to invest in third party groups to fight excise taxes on cigarettes, as well as health studies finding a link between cancer and secondhand cigarette smoke.

May 16, 2013 at 3:21 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[One side gives equal marriage rights to everyone. The other doesn't.]

Actually, the gays only care about redefining marriage for themselves. What about everybody else who wants more than one marriage partner? Or being married to whatever thing they want? Now it doesn't seem so "equal", does it? Whose standard are you choosing to follow? Now who's discriminating against whom?

[You obviously don't know what that word means because you are one.]

How?

[The laws in the United States ARE NOT based on biblical principles or any religious principles.]

Some of them are.

[Why did the Founding Fathers go to great lengths to make sure the United States government was founded on secular, inclusive ideals?]

They didn't. Consider the words of John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[You're making this up as you go along.]

Read it and weep...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurers-predict-100-to-400-obamacare-rate-explosion/article/2529523

[The 15-20% of low income people that still vote Republican are voting against their own economic interests.]

Fine. But the majority of low income people are obviously not voting against their own economic interests.

May 16, 2013 at 4:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"Actually, the gays only care about redefining marriage for themselves."

Name another group that isn't permitted to marry.

"What about everybody else who wants more than one marriage partner?"

Homosexuals don't want to be married to more than one partner. Your slippery slope argument is fallacious.

"Or being married to whatever thing they want?"

Considering the gay marriage issue is concerning marriage between two, consenting adults, you don't have a case. Again, your slippery slope argument is fallacious.

"Now it doesn't seem so "equal", does it?"

Your slippery slope argument is fallacious. The issue in question is not about polygamy or marrying animals/inanimate objects. It's about two, consenting adults being able to marry.

"Whose standard are you choosing to follow?"

Again, your slippery slope argument is fallacious. The issue in question is not about polygamy or marrying animals/inanimate objects. It's about two, consenting adults being able to marry.

"Now who's discriminating against whom?"

You are. If you are too ignorant or brainwashed to see the difference between two adults marrying and a man marrying a sheep, then you are truly mentally compromised.

**But that will always be the crux of your argument against gay marriage. You don't have a logical, non-religious reason to oppose it, so you use fallacious arguments about polygamy and marrying animals as if gay marriage is, somehow, equivalent to those things or will cause them in some way.

"How?"

Do you want a full run down or just a synopsis of today's hypocrisy?

"Some of them are."

No, they are not.

"They didn't."

Yes, they did. Have you read the Constitution? Show me all the "Biblical principles" or any mention of God or Jesus or Christianity.

"Consider the words of John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

People can be moral without religion. Adams was saying that the Constitution was made for people that follow the rules. The Constitution is a secular document. There is no mention of God or Jesus or Christianity whatsoever.

By the way, John Adams was a Unitarian. He rejected the divinity of Christ and the "Holy Trinity".

"Read it and weep..."

I was referring to the "recession" part. Where is your link regarding that claim?

"Fine. But the majority of low income people are obviously not voting against their own economic interests."

So you're conceding the point? If the majority (Democrats) of low income voters are not voting against their own economic interests, then you are admitting the 15-20% of low income voters that don't vote Democrat are, in fact, voting against their own interests.

May 16, 2013 at 6:27 p.m.
jjmez said...

They didn't. Consider the words of John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Actually, America was meant to be a nation of anglo-saxons only. Don't know what they planned on doing with all the natives who were already here (oh wait! GENOCIDE complete), or the Africans brought here in chains after their free labor was no longer required. OH, wait! Another complete genocide was meant to take place.

so stop nit-pickin' history, lest you dredge up something you never intended or knew.

May 16, 2013 at 6:29 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[The issue in question is not about polygamy or marrying animals/inanimate objects. It's about two, consenting adults being able to marry.]

No, the issue (according to you) was about equality. And I showed you that you're not truly being equal by only extending marriage to monogamous gays.

[If you are too ignorant or brainwashed to see the difference between two adults marrying and a man marrying a sheep...]

Of course there is a difference. But you are still discriminating, are you not? Again, what/whose standard are you following by allowing some groups to marry and others not?

[You don't have a logical, non-religious reason to oppose it...]

I really don't need a non-religious reason to oppose it. Marriage originated in the Bible, did it not?

[Do you want a full run down or just a synopsis of today's hypocrisy?]

Lol. Go for it. There's zero hypocrisy in anything I've written today.

[Adams was saying that the Constitution was made for people that follow the rules.]

I got more out of his quote than just that.

[I was referring to the "recession" part. Where is your link regarding that claim?]

Here's a link:

http://www.moneynews.com/MichaelCarr/IRS-Obamacare-recession-shell/2013/03/08/id/493769

[If the majority (Democrats) of low income voters are not voting against their own economic interests, then you are admitting the 15-20% of low income voters that don't vote Democrat are, in fact, voting against their own interests.]

Yes, I agree that the 15-20% are voting against their own ECONOMIC interests. However, when deciding on a candidate, there's more to consider than just economic interests. For example, the 15-20% that you mentioned may have voted conservative because they valued a pro-life or traditional marriage stance more than the economic issues. If so, then it's not fair to say they simply voted against their own economic interests as if they didn't know any better.

The same is true on the flip side. You'd expect the majority of the top 1% to vote Republican because it's in their best economic interests to do so. However, there are many prominent rich liberals who kiss Obama's hind end anyway. It's not because they don't care about their economic interests, it's because they care more about the other issues instead.

May 16, 2013 at 10:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"No, the issue (according to you) was about equality."

Among consenting, monogamous couples.

"And I showed you that you're not truly being equal by only extending marriage to monogamous gays."

No, you didn't. Your argument was fallacious. And, of course, you've proven that you are, in fact, too ignorant and brainwashed to know the difference.

"But you are still discriminating, are you not?"

No. I'm including everyone. No animals or harems.

Also, wouldn't polygamy part of your "Biblical principles"? LMFAO!

"Again, what/whose standard are you following by allowing some groups to marry and others not?"

The standard of two, consenting adults marrying regardless of sex or sexual orientation. That leaves no one out. You, sir, are the one discriminating in only allow those of one sexuality to marry under the law based on your personal religious beliefs regarding the way marriage was viewed in Bronze Age Palestine.

"I really don't need a non-religious reason to oppose it."

You do in the United States of America for it to hold up under scrutiny of any kind. Especially when the SCOTUS gets involved.

"Marriage originated in the Bible, did it not?"

No. Marriage pre-dates written history.

"Lol. Go for it. There's zero hypocrisy in anything I've written today."

I knew you didn't know what that word meant. What about the fact that you don't want others to impose their "beliefs' on you, but you see no problem imposing your "beliefs" on others. Or the fact that you are trying to accuse me of discriminating against human/animal matrimony while you're the one discriminating against two consenting adults of the same sex marrying. Should I go on? LOL!

"I got more out of his quote than just that."

You read what you want to read, not what is written. It's a typical trait of religious people.

"Here's a link:"

With no facts.

"If so, then it's not fair to say they simply voted against their own economic interests as if they didn't know any better."

It's plenty fair to say that because the social issues that you named have no real effect on those people outside of them not "believing" that those things are correct. It's highly nonsensical.

"However, there are many prominent rich liberals who kiss Obama's hind end anyway."

And there are even more rich conservatives that don't.

"It's not because they don't care about their economic interests, it's because they care more about the other issues instead."

Conjecture. Most wealthy people that vote Democrat understand that they have the ability to afford any tax increase that might come there way. It's nearly impossible for a wealthy individual to "vote against their own economic interests".

May 16, 2013 at 11:13 p.m.
fairmon said...

The tea party does not really want to reduce the governments size and involvement in peoples lives to the extent they should. Why do those supporting or opposing gay marriage support discriminating against singles that are not gay? Take the discrimination against singles away and there is no issue. I prefer being single which means getting the full brunt of the discriminating policies favoring marriage. Who in the hell are politicians that think they should define the "American dream" for everyone. Why, if it is cheaper for two to live than one, is it necessary to add to that advantage with discriminatory tax and other policies and practices? Why should I help those that want to own a house with borrowed money pay for it? Why should I help educate their house full of rug rats? Why should I help pay for their health care and retirement income? Why should I help pay for their spouses social security income? The only reason for requiring a state license to be married is to participate in the discrimination against those not married. There is no reference in the bible to obtaining a state license to show two people are married. There is really no justification for any government to be involved in a marriage which is no more than two people making a commitment to each other.

May 17, 2013 at 6:07 a.m.
Stewwie said...

[You do in the United States of America for it to hold up under scrutiny of any kind.]

False.

[Especially when the SCOTUS gets involved.]

The SCOTUS is less concerned with the reasoning behind the 52% of Californians who voted down gay marriage. The issue is whether or not that kind of law can be passed in the first place. But the SCOTUS should do the right thing and uphold the vote in CA.

[I knew you didn't know what that word meant.]

You, sir, are the one who obviously does not know what the word means. From Merriam-Webster: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion."

[What about the fact that you don't want others to impose their "beliefs' on you, but you see no problem imposing your "beliefs" on others.]

I said earlier that ultimately someone gets to "impose" their beliefs on someone else. That's what happens when you live under a standard and the people disagree on what that standard should be. Nothing that I said about any of that is hypocritical based on the definition of the word. On the flip side, I did accuse Ike of being hypocritical because she claims to be against anyone "imposing", but in reality, she's only against Christians "imposing". It's okay to her if gays "impose" their beliefs on others. The hypocrisy falls under the "to believe what one does not" part of the definition that I provided.

[Or the fact that you are trying to accuse me of discriminating against human/animal matrimony while you're the one discriminating against two consenting adults of the same sex marrying.]

Because I am against the redefinition of marriage, then yes, I am "discriminating" against anyone who wants to be married that is not one man and one woman. I have not denied that. However, I pointed out that you are also discriminating as well if you are not in favor of opening marriage up to anyone and anything. Thus, by chastising me for "discriminating", you are the pot calling the kettle black.

[With no facts.]

So when premiums skyrocket next year (according to projections), people will have much less disposable income than they do now. And without the middle class having that extra money to spend, what do you think that will do to the economy?

May 17, 2013 at 9:31 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

she's only against Christians "imposing". It's okay to her if gays "impose" their beliefs on others. The hypocrisy falls under the "to believe what one does not" part of the definition that I provided.

How are gays being given rights to marry "imposing' their "beliefs" on you? What rights are you denied by allowing marriage equality?

As far as animals, and children, and mentally disabled adults, they cannot give consent. Plural marriage? There are plenty of Biblical examples of this, and perhaps that will happen in the future. Why do you care?

Marriage equality is inevitable. The Bill of Rights states "equal protection under law". The majority cannot vote away that right.

So when premiums skyrocket next year (according to projections)

Source?

May 17, 2013 at 10:17 a.m.
Stewwie said...

[How are gays being given rights to marry "imposing' their "beliefs" on you? What rights are you denied by allowing marriage equality?]

The issue is about redefining marriage from what it currently is. That's how it's "imposing" on my beliefs. If gays are wanting other "rights" that they currently don't have, they should try to achieve those things through some other means.

[Marriage equality is inevitable.]

False.

[The Bill of Rights states "equal protection under law".]

Funny that you don't use this statement in defense of the unborn. I guess "consent" is a prerequisite for equal protection? Says who? Not the Constitution.

[The majority cannot vote away that right.]

Marriage itself is not a "right".

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenMarriage90712.html

[Source?]

I posted a link in my 4:57 pm post yesterday. There's no question that premiums will increase more than normal next year as a direct result of the Obamacare legislation. The only question is by how much.

May 17, 2013 at 11:36 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"False."

Wrong again.

"The SCOTUS is less concerned with the reasoning behind the 52% of Californians who voted down gay marriage."

That is literally all they are concerned about. That's what they are deciding on regarding DOMA and any other gay marriage case: whether the reasoning behind the law is Constitutional.

"You, sir, are the one who obviously does not know what the word means."

I knew you didn't know what it meant. LMFAO!

"a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

"I said earlier that ultimately someone gets to "impose" their beliefs on someone else."

And you were wrong. The only one that gets to impose their beliefs on anyone in the gay marriage situation is the religious. Allow gay marriage doesn't affect you. Disallowing it does affect homosexuals.

"That's what happens when you live under a standard and the people disagree on what that standard should be."

You don't get it. You're the only one setting the standard. My position is to include everyone. Yours isn't.

"Nothing that I said about any of that is hypocritical based on the definition of the word."

That's because you don't know the definition of the word. You had to look it up and only included the first definition you came to.

"On the flip side, I did accuse Ike of being hypocritical because she claims to be against anyone "imposing", but in reality, she's only against Christians "imposing"."

And you'd still be wrong because I know that Ikeithlu would be "against" any religious institution trying to impose their will through legislation on others. But, if you haven't noticed, America is 80% Christian. We aren't dealing with people trying to legislate Sharia law here. It's the Christian dominionist and theocrats that we have to worry about.

"It's okay to her if gays "impose" their beliefs on others."

I've already explained to you that gays aren't imposing any beliefs on anyone. You are the one imposing your beliefs. Your beliefs regarding gay marriage are discriminatory. The gay's position isn't and has no affect on you if gay marriage was legalized.

"The hypocrisy falls under the "to believe what one does not" part of the definition that I provided."

First of all, no it doesn't. You don't even understand the definition you provided. That means acting like you believe something which you don't. Secondly, the definition you provided for the word "hypocrite" isn't the universally accepted definition of the word. You're truly ignorant and I called it from the start.

May 17, 2013 at 11:47 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie (continued),

"Because I am against the redefinition of marriage, then yes, I am "discriminating" against anyone who wants to be married that is not one man and one woman."

And, by that admission, you are advocating a position that is unconstitutional.

"However, I pointed out that you are also discriminating as well if you are not in favor of opening marriage up to anyone and anything."

No, I am not. I have explained many times that the argument you are attempting is fallacious. It is impossible to discriminate against animals or inanimate objects in regard to human marriage.

"Thus, by chastising me for "discriminating", you are the pot calling the kettle black."

Wrong, wrong, wrong again. You don't understand what you're even talking about. You're arguing that because I don't advocate humans being able to marry animals or inanimate objects, that I am being discriminatory. The only people that would be discrimination against would be the animals or inanimate objects. There are two sexes of human beings. I advocate marriage between any combination of those two. That's equality based on the gender options available to humans.

May 17, 2013 at 11:53 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

The only question is by how much.

You used the term "skyrocket" for a reason, Stewwie. I want ton know how you decided the premiums will "skyrocket".

Sharia Law will never be imposed in the US, because parts of Sharia are superseded by the constitution.

Easy pretty much covered the rest. Thanks, Easy.

May 17, 2013 at noon
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"The issue is about redefining marriage from what it currently is."

It's about redefining YOUR definition of marriage.

"That's how it's "imposing" on my beliefs."

You can keep your beliefs. You aren't forced to accept gay marriage. You just can't legislate you admittedly discriminatory beliefs. Legalizing gay marriage in no way imposes on your beliefs.

"If gays are wanting other "rights" that they currently don't have, they should try to achieve those things through some other means."

You know you've lost the argument when you get to the "If they don't like it, they should just go away." argument.

"False."

You're in for a rude awakening in about 15-20 years.

"Funny that you don't use this statement in defense of the unborn."

SCOTUS already declared abortion Constitutional. You're egregiously ignorant.

"I guess "consent" is a prerequisite for equal protection? Says who? Not the Constitution."

Every law regarding the subject nationwide.

"Marriage itself is not a "right"."

It is a right provided to us by our federal, state, and local governments.

I strongly encourage you to do more research before you respond. It's highly disconcerting that you are this blatantly ignorant.

May 17, 2013 at 12:02 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[The only one that gets to impose their beliefs on anyone in the gay marriage situation is the religious.]

False.

[My position is to include everyone.]

False.

[That's because you don't know the definition of the word.]

False.

[You had to look it up and only included the first definition you came to.]

I did not have to look it up; I already knew the definition. I posted the definition for you since you obviously didn't already know what it was.

[And you'd still be wrong because I know that Ikeithlu would be "against" any religious institution trying to impose their will through legislation on others.]

It would be illegal to force people into a certain religion. But applying religious principles in laws is not. The Founding Fathers not only knew this but they encouraged applying Christian principles to our government's laws. If you are against doing that, that's your business. But don't ruin it for the majority of our country that wants to keep it that way.

[You don't even understand the definition you provided.]

False.

[Secondly, the definition you provided for the word "hypocrite" isn't the universally accepted definition of the word.]

LOL!! I guess Merriam-Webster has it all wrong? Get them on the phone right now and tell them to change their definition! Unbelievable!!

May 17, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"False."

Wrong again. You cannot logically explain the opposite position.

"False."

Wrong again. I've made it clear that your argument regarding human marriage to animals and inanimate objects is fallacious.

"False."

And wrong again. I know you didn't know it because you didn't include the second definition a.k.a. the proper one in the context in which I used it.

"I did not have to look it up; I already knew the definition."

Then why didn't you post the commonly accepted definition of the term in the context in which I used the word?

"I posted the definition for you since you obviously didn't already know what it was."

Is that why you didn't post the commonly accepted definition of the term in the context I used it?

"It would be illegal to force people into a certain religion. But applying religious principles in laws is not.'

Yes, it is. When you apply any religious principles to laws, you are dictating which religious rules you wish people to adhere to. That is unconstitutional. First amendment.

"The Founding Fathers not only knew this but they encouraged applying Christian principles to our government's laws."

That is a blatant lie.

"If you are against doing that, that's your business. But don't ruin it for the majority of our country that wants to keep it that way."

How can you keep it the way it isn't? Our laws and Constitution are not based on religious principles. There is no argument to the contrary.

"LOL!! I guess Merriam-Webster has it all wrong?"

Try reading the second definition that Merriam-Webster provides. The more commonly accept on when referring to written words.

"Get them on the phone right now and tell them to change their definition!'

The definition I provided was from Merriam-Webster.

"Unbelievable!!"

It truly is unbelievable that you are incapable of knowing the commonly accept definition of the word "hypocrite" in regard to written words and incapable of understanding that words have multiple definitions depending on the context in which they are written.

Again, I strongly encourage you to do more research before you respond. It's highly disconcerting that you are this blatantly ignorant.

May 17, 2013 at 2:21 p.m.
chet123 said...

I'M GLAD THE TEA-PARTY EXIST....IT GIVE ME SOMETHING TO LAUGH AT...........WITH TEA-PARTY YOU GET THE GOLDWATER REPUBLICAN AND THE DIXIECRATES COMBINE TOGETHER.....HA HA HA THEY WILL NEVER GOVERN THE MAJORITY.....THEY WILL ONLY CONTROL THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY..HA HA HA HA

May 17, 2013 at 4:06 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[The definition I provided was from Merriam-Webster.]

I provided the first and only definition to "hypocrisy." You provided the 2nd definition to "hypocrite". I should have made that distinction clear in my previous post. Neither of us are wrong in our definitions.

[It truly is unbelievable that you are incapable of knowing the commonly accept definition of the word "hypocrite" in regard to written words and incapable of understanding that words have multiple definitions depending on the context in which they are written.]

You said I was being hypocritical and I proved that I was not. That's why I accused you of not knowing what the word meant.

May 17, 2013 at 4:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"Neither of us are wrong in our definitions."

You were wrong considering you didn't refer to the definition of "hypocrite" that would coincide with the way I used the word.

"You said I was being hypocritical and I proved that I was not."

No, you didn't at all. You never reconciled any of the hypocrisy you were guilty of committing. You attempted to by pointing to a definition that did not coincide with the context in which I used the word, but I showed you your error, yet you still act like you have proven me wrong.

You are a hypocrite. You falsely accuse gays of trying to "impose their beliefs" on you when you are advocating that very thing against them.

Not only that, you don't even know what the word "impose" means. You're extremely deluded and ignorant.

"That's why I accused you of not knowing what the word meant."

Considering you didn't prove that you weren't being hypocritical and you don't understand how I was using the word by providing a conflicting definition of the word, I have come to the conclusion that you still don't know what the word means.

May 17, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.
wethepeople said...

Interesting that Tea Party groups are called hate groups but many of the thoughts expressed on this thread are at best full of animosity and at worst bordering on hate themselves. Here's a challenge to all of you who believe so many awful things about the Tea Party. Instead of venting online, I challenge you to meet the Chattanooga Tea Party face to face - to openly discuss these issues and concerns with those you are maligning. As the leader of the Chattanooga Tea Party I'd be glad to do so in a peaceful, respectful manner. And I'd invite Drew Johnson from the Times Free Press to moderate it. It seems this would be much more productive and revealing as to what we really believe than simply regurgitating comments that may have no validity. And of course, if all that you contend is valid, what better opportunity to expose the Chattanooga Tea Party in a public forum for the "hatemongers" that you all believe us to be. What say you? Are you up to the challenge? I think I know the answer but hope you will accept. Online venting is cheap. Face to face dialogue takes courage. Which is it?

May 18, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

we the people

your web site has one of its goals: "Restoring Traditional Values"

Can you elaborate?

It also says: "Recognizing the power of the people"

What exactly do you mean?

It says: "Replacing the burdensome & unfair US tax laws"

Closing loopholes so the wealthy pay more? Or taking out deductions that help the poor and middle class?

It says: "Maintaining a strong national defense"

How do you propose to do this and also cut spending and lower the deficit? The military (the largest in the world) already takes a large share. What will give?

May 18, 2013 at 2:45 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I am happy to have a party that wants fiscal responsibility. But the Tea Party has attracted some pretty strange figureheads, people whose integrity and even intelligence I find questionable. The push to solve the fiscal problems too fast (austerity) has stymied the recovery, and the emphasis on imposing morality based on fundamentalist Christianity is a huge distraction.

May 18, 2013 at 2:53 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.