Tea Party Convention

[joobz]

No I did not. I'm not sure what it would accomplish? No one boo'd much of anything that I know. Why not? Because we share concerns about things I do think are important. And honestly the threat of someone saying a prayer in school doesn't seem credible much less dangerous.

Then you clearly do not understand the issue.
It isn't a problem someone saying a prayer as school. You are allowed to. It is a problem when the PUBLIC SCHOOL leads in the prayer. By doing so, you select one religion over others. It's that simple. You remove the rights away from those who are not part of the public school representative religion.

One difference I have found between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative is often receptive to the idea that you can't have freedom, if you aren't willing to offer freedom.

A liberal almost never is.

And yet, the example of school prayer you gave above is exactly that. No liberal wishes to remove personal freedom in prayer. They do not wish to stop people from expressing their religion. They simply wish to ensure that government takes no active role in one religion over any other.

Here's more examples of liberals "offering freedom".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/act...clu-questions-delay-rally-permit-applications


It would be interesting to know if you actually will change your opinion in light of this information.
I simply hope you will heed your own words....

Having never investigated for yourself that's all you know. Since it suits your preconceptions that's all you will ever know.

I can't fix that. I was just offering information.

 

[Faithkills]

Really?

Really. It's sad actually.

The issue is ultimately that too much freedom inhibits your ability to use force to compel equality. Freedom impedes equality.

[Freedom] is not only compatible with conditions in which all men are fellow-servants, but finds in such conditions its most perfect expression - R. H. Tawney, Equality,

In "The State" De Jasay observes:

Even if it were not yet one more dimension of people's existence, like money or luck or breeding, in which equality can be violated, freedom as immunity would still have to be opposed by the liberal. Even when we all have it, the immunity of some curtails the state's ability to help others and consequently its production of democratic values; even equal freedom-as-immunity is inimical to the common good.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Exactly my point.

Ah, so your point is that you can make an incoherent statement?

Patently.

And we're all supposed to take your word for it, despite the abundance of evidence that has been cited with these criticisms? (That is, the words of the speakers at Tea Party events, photos of signs at Tea Party protests, words of Tea Party members on discussion forums, etc.)

There's no racists that I have seen. We don't allow them. You can be pro-choice or pro gay marriage, but there's one thing you most certainly can't be and that's racist. Racists are not welcome.

Really? You want to see more pictures of overtly racist signs at Tea Party demonstrations that were at the very least tolerated? How about racist rantings on Tea Party forums?

You are quite erroneous at best, if not disingenuous, in asserting that's all it is. There are social conservatives. But everyone is not a social conservative.

Every teabagger is a fiscal conservative.

By the same reasoning you have used to argue that the Tea Party movement is not a social conservative movement, I can reason that the Tea Party movement is not a fiscal conservative movement. Perhaps most tellingly, where is the Tea Party outrage about GOP fiscal irresponsibility?

The Tea Party movement really did start as an anti-Obama reaction. It was non-existence during most of Bush's term, and it was not critical of some extreme fiscal irresponsibility and big government during the Bush administration.

Those are the facts. As you must know if you indeed watched the entire thing. (which I doub't I didn't see cameras at every session)

So you're arguing that only someone who attended every minute of the National Tea Party Convention may criticize the Tea Party movement?

Feel free to try to spin it as a social conservative movement all you like. At this point you're merely lying.

Bull.

It's not spin when you've got speakers promoting social conservatism and over-the-top anti-Obama rhetoric. It's not spin when a key Tea Party organizer is known to be an overt racist.

Again, if the Tea Party movement is not a social conservative movement then it is also not a fiscal conservative movement. The same reasoning applies, plus the inconsistency in position wrt to GOP fiscal irresponsibility, and the clear historic fact that the Tea Party movement started as a reaction to Obama.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Freedom impedes equality.

Ah. . . no wonder you don't see the Tea Party movement as full of crackpots.

 

[A'isha]

Exactly my point.

Perhaps you could provide some examples of times when "conservatives" offered freedoms that "liberals" didn't?

There's no racists that I have seen. We don't allow them. You can be pro-choice or pro gay marriage, but there's one thing you most certainly can't be and that's racist. Racists are not welcome.

One of the speeches I have given emphatically stated that if there were any crypto-racists who have been lead by media coverage to think this was a fertile garden that they were in the wrong place.

Tom Tancredo begs to differ.

 

[cwalner]

One difference I have found between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative is often receptive to the idea that you can't have freedom, if you aren't willing to offer freedom.

A liberal almost never is.

That is either the most patently absurd statement on this thread or you are using a different defenition of conservative than most of us are used to.

I think it is the latter.

I have already expressed my difficulties in affiliating with the Republican party, which is generally considered the conservative of the two mainstream parties. My issue is that the conservatives in that party are going out of thier way to deny me the freedom to marry who I wish.

This means that either you are using some defenition of 'conservative' in which the religious right are No True Conservatives or you are being willfully blind to the flaws of the conservative movement

 

[A'isha]

Really. It's sad actually.

The issue is ultimately that too much freedom inhibits your ability to use force to compel equality. Freedom impedes equality.




In "The State" De Jasay observes:

What makes you think Tawney (a British writer of the early 20th Century whose views were heavily influenced by his Christian faith) and De Jasay (a Hungarian who fled his country in the immediate aftermath of WWII in the wake of the Soviet clampdown and who spent virtually all his life living, working, and writing in Europe) have anything to do with modern American "liberals" as a coherent political group?

 

[Faithkills]

Then you clearly do not understand the issue.

Don't be daft. My elucidation clearly shows I understand the issue.

It isn't a problem someone saying a prayer as school. You are allowed to. It is a problem when the PUBLIC SCHOOL leads in the prayer. By doing so, you select one religion over others. It's that simple. You remove the rights away from those who are not part of the public school representative religion.

As an atheist one woo is generally only quantitatively different than another. The religion of Christianity is worse than the religion of Collectivism that is taught now?

I'm not convinced.

And yet, the example of school prayer you gave above is exactly that. No liberal wishes to remove personal freedom in prayer. They do not wish to stop people from expressing their religion. They simply wish to ensure that government takes no active role in one religion over any other.

Really? Then take out the Zinnian revisionism and I'll believe you.

Here's more examples of liberals "offering freedom". It would be interesting to know if you actually will change your opinion in light of this information.

I said seldom not never. The ACLU occasionally lines up on the right side to be sure.

They also supported the Citizen's United decision.

I could also point out this has made them persona non gratis in statist circles.

The reality is however that if offered the option to let states or individuals decide an issue rather than deciding at the federal level liberals are far more loath to opt for freedom.

They like forcing their way more than conservatives. Conservatives more often push back merely because it's being decided at a federal level.

If I negotiated a deal to never decide at the federal level: abortion, or funding socialized health care programs, or funding massive welfare states, or gay marriage, or drug legalization, or religion in schools, or states contributions to the military and leave it all to the states or the individuals, would you agree?

Of course you wouldn't.

But many conservatives would take that bargain. Many wouldn't, but many would.

 

[Faithkills]

What makes you think Tawney (a British writer of the early 20th Century whose views were heavily influenced by his Christian faith) and De Jasay (a Hungarian who fled his country in the immediate aftermath of WWII in the wake of the Soviet clampdown and who spent virtually all his life living, working, and writing in Europe) have anything to do with modern American "liberals" as a coherent political group?

They are both describing the same thing from different sides. You haven't made a coherent counter argument, or one at all.

How can you enforce maximal equality if you allow freedom?

 

[Faithkills]

This means that either you are using some defenition of 'conservative' in which the religious right are No True Conservatives or you are being willfully blind to the flaws of the conservative movement

Where did I say no conservative is against gay marriage? This is very poor quality debate. Stick with what I said.

 

[Neally]

Really? You want to see more pictures of overtly racist signs at Tea Party demonstrations that were at the very least tolerated? How about racist rantings on Tea Party forums?

You do know that there is a difference between bigot and racist, right?

So do you think that bigoted signs displayed by some people at an open rally define the platform/philosophy of the entire organization? That a posting on an open registration forum defines all members of that forum/organization?

Tom Tancredo begs to differ.

Tancredo used Obama's middle name, wow, how horrible racist is that, and therefore how racist all those Teabaggers are! I guess the only politically correct thing to do now is refer to his middle name as the "H" word.

 

[Walter Ego]

I'm an athiest, pro choice, skeptic, pro gay marriage teabagger who actually attended the event in question.

Did you have your shirt on when you attended?

 

[Walter Ego]

You do know that there is a difference between bigot and racist, right?

And what is that difference exactly?

 

[cwalner]

Where did I say no conservative is against gay marriage? This is very poor quality debate. Stick with what I said.

Silly me. I thought I was providing an example of where conservatives are not only not willing to entertain the idea of offering freedom, but are actively trying to deny it for some people, thus showing the absurdity of your statement that I had quoted previously.

 

[A'isha]

They are both describing the same thing from different sides. You haven't made a coherent counter argument, or one at all.

How can you enforce maximal equality if you allow freedom?

I'm not trying to make an argument; I'm trying to get you to give me your argument. So, again: what do the writings of Tawney and De Jasay have to do with modern American "liberals" as an identifiable political movement? What specific callbacks to their ideas exist in mainstream "liberal" party platforms (ie, like those of the Democrats)? Where do they discuss the dichotomy between "maximal equality" and "allowing freedom"? How do their ideas of this dichotomy compare and contrast to the "conservative" restrictions on freedoms in areas such as gay marriage, abortion, Constitutional protections, drug legalization, and immigration that exist in the mainstream "conservative" party platforms (ie, like those of the Republicans)?

Tancredo used Obama's middle name, wow, how horrible racist is that, and therefore how racist all those Teabaggers are! I guess the only politically correct thing to do now is refer to his middle name as the "H" word.

Do you care to address the rest of that essay? You know, the stuff about Tancredo saying “people who could not even spell the word or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House?” What "people" do you think he was referring to? All those uneducated, non-English-speaking whites who voted for Obama, perhaps?

How about where he was longing for restrictions on voting rights that, in the entire history they were in place in the United States, were used solely to keep blacks from voting? Why do you think he wants to return to that?

 

[DavidJames]

One difference I have found between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative is often receptive to the idea that you can't have freedom, if you aren't willing to offer freedom.

I have no idea what you mean.

Exactly my point.

I take it since you can't explain it you don't understand it either. Either that or you're just being an ass.

Also...for the third time....

We know about Joseph Farrah and what he said and we know how Palin feels regarding the God and social agenda. Who were the key speakers that were not social conservatives?

 

[Faithkills]

Did you have your shirt on when you attended?

Yes. It was not that sort of convention

Silly me. I thought I was providing an example of where conservatives are not only not willing to entertain the idea of offering freedom, but are actively trying to deny it for some people, thus showing the absurdity of your statement that I had quoted previously.

So you would be willing to leave these issues up to the states instead of having your way over the whole nation?

Funding state health care.
Funding state welfare programs.
Funding contribution to the federal military.
Gay marriage.
Abortion.
Which religion is in schools.
Drug legalization/decriminalization.

I really doubt it. Because you're right.

The difference is I can get a lot of conservatives to agree to that very bargain, despite they are equally sure they are right.

what do the writings of Tawney and De Jasay have to do with modern American "liberals" as an identifiable political movement?

Asked and answered. You cannot maximize freedom if your goal is to maximize equality, or 'social justice', etc, unless you redefine freedom to be social justice (ie Rawls) which ultimately means simply freedom of the state to do unto the people.

If you disagree make your case, otherwise you aren't adding anything to the discussion.

It's too bad.. there's certainly a lot interesting to say on the topic.

 

[A'isha]

Asked and answered.

No it wasn't. "They just do!" is not a valid argument.

You cannot maximize freedom if your goal is to maximize equality, or 'social justice', etc, unless you redefine freedom to be social justice (ie Rawls) which ultimately means simply freedom of the state to do unto the people.

Yes, that's what Tawney and De Jasay say (though I'd take issue with your interpretation of Rawls there, but that's irrelevant right now). Now, tell me where and how the modern American "liberal" political movement and its associated mainstream party actually subscribes to that theory. What modern American "liberal" writers and political theorists agree with Tawney and De Jasay, what party planks are directly inspired by their writings, and what influence, if any, do "liberals" who might happen to disagree with Tawney and De Jasay have in the modern American "liberal" movement?

In other words, tell me, specifically, why you think that Tawney and De Jasay's ideas are the reason a liberal is almost never willing to offer freedom, in your perception.

If you disagree make your case, otherwise you aren't adding anything to the discussion.

I'm not disagreeing with anything. You're the one who made the assertion that modern American "liberals" are almost never willing to offer freedom because of things Tawney and De Jasay wrote and thought over half a century ago on another continent entirely. Now support it or withdraw it.

It's too bad.. there's certainly a lot interesting to say on the topic.

Yes, there is. That's why I'm trying to get you to actually say something about it.

 

[cwalner]

So you would be willing to leave these issues up to the states instead of having your way over the whole nation?

Funding state health care.
Funding state welfare programs.
Funding contribution to the federal military.
Gay marriage.
Abortion.
Which religion is in schools.
Drug legalization/decriminalization.

I really doubt it. Because you're right.

The difference is I can get a lot of conservatives to agree to that very bargain, despite they are equally sure they are right.

1st two points - giving the states unfunded mandates is not offering freedom to the states.
3rd point - per the US constitution maintaining the military is the responsiblity of the federal government, funding it is therefore a federal responsibility not a State one. This has nothing to do with freedom.
4th, 5th & 7th point - I do not see allowing states to curtail freedom as offering freedom.
6th point - read the 1st and 14th ammendments


In summary from your list you and I are not talking about the same thing. I am talking about government (local, state or federal) curtailing individual freedoms. Your list shows that you are talking only about a federal government curtailing freedom of the state governments.

In short, yes, I believe that the federal government has not only the right, but in many cases, the obligation to curtail the freedom of state governments if such freedom could lead to lesser individual freedoms.

 

[Sporanox]

Sporonax,

For good or for ill, only one of the groups had the resources and organization to put together a convention. Therefore they have earned the right to be the official voice of the Tea Party movement. Like it or not, they chose to embrace Brithirism at thier convention. I get that you don't agree with them on that, and good for you.

However, as I said, I tend to agree with most of the fiscal policy of the Republican party, yet on one social issue, gay rights, thier position is too anathema to me for me to count myself as a Republican. I still vote for them most of the time, the notable exception being those that campaign strongly on the anti-gay platform.

Now that the Tea Party has progressed from disparate protests to an actual party that intends to field candidates, you have to decide where your position in that party will be. This is complicated by two obvious facts. Thier acceptance of Birthirism and your rejection of it. I am not saying that your balnce point will or should be the same as mine, but it is something you have to decide. However, if all you do is continue to complain that those at the convention do not represent the 'true' Tea Party, you will go nowhere. They are the ones who had the drive to make thier version the official version, which makes them the 'true' Tea party in the eyes of the rest of America. Now you are only left with the choice to decide if thier flaws (ie Birtherism) are more imporant than what you agree with them on (ie Govt Spending)

As I said before, this choice is nothing special and is similar to one every Republican and Democrat has to make.

You appear to be taking the latter definition I outlined, i.e. that the Tea Party will actually be a third party. I do not agree with this and so in conclusion do not agree with your persistent declarations that the Tea Party now has a platform of sorts that explicitly endorses birtherism.

HAVING SAID THAT, as I have no doubt that the "no true bagger" line will come up once again (even though it has no relevance; I clearly stated that Farah is also a Tea Partier, terrible as that may be), it is possible that you are right and I am wrong. The Tea Party could end up becoming a third choice on the ballot, which would in all likelihood mean conservative demise - especially if the people who invited Farah are the ones calling the shots. The reason I say this is because, loose as it is, the direction of the TP movement has been an enigma ever since the first major protests, from what I can see.

I would be more inclined to believe the predictions of those posting here if so many of you had not displayed a knee-jerk tendency to declare most TPs Bible-thumping socons, even up to misreading the goal of the first TP protests.

Now, as long as the TP movement doesn't try to put up its own candidates, I'm hopeful that things will go well for conservatives even if the only TPers left are kooks. This is because the discontent with this country's fiscal policy is real and unlikely to go away, which is the only reason I liked the Tea Parties in the first place.