Here's where you go wrong. It's not a matter of what Tea Partiers believe, it's why they've gathered in the Tea Party instead of the Republican Party. They may be socially conservative, but it's not as important to them as limiting government. For example, you would identify me as a rabid Blazer fan, but that doesn't mean leglislating against the L*kers is a priority for me. There is plenty of room for social conservatives in the Republican Party. The thrust of the Tea Party is the size and scale of government and that's why people who may have socially conservative viewpoints choose it instead of the Republican Party.
If what you're saying is that social conservatism is not a plank of the Tea Party, but most supporters of the Tea Party are socially conservative, I'd agree with that. But that still makes those who are both hypocritical. They're aligning themselves with a party that stands for less government intrusion, yet personally believe in more government intrusion in the social sphere. That doesn't make the Tea Party platform hypocritical, but many of its supporters are.
Really? You can't have some of your ideals have higher weighting, and thus, more bearing on your overall position than the others?
The party, ultimately, will stand for what its voters believe in. And that's (in part) social conservatism. It might not be their number 1 priority right this minute, but it would be foolish to think they've renounced it by joining the tea party. And it would be foolish to think that a party can just ignore completely the wishes of their own voters for very long. All the republican voters moving from the republican party to the tea party doesn't actually change anything except the sign on the door. barfo
Of course you can. People are often contradictory, sometimes moreso, sometimes less so. When you're thumping the drum for limited government but have a number of positions where you want expansive government, I'd say that's moreso. Weren't you criticizing people for "picking and choosing" pay-for-use fee situations based on convenience? Why aren't you the least bit critical of these people for picking and choosing "limited government" based on convenience? ' I don't think they're bad people for this hypocrisy, but why not call a spade a spade?
I love people who have never been to a Tea party rally or meeting telling us all what the Tea Party stands for. Just terrific stuff.
We aren't telling you what the tea party stands for. We are telling you what tea party members stand for (according to tea party members). barfo
touché. Gotta say that was a really good response. But wait, isn't the "Tea Party" back in the 1700's?
Exactly right. The KKK stands for racial segregation. Individually, they may have other beliefs, but they're brought together by their belief in separating the races. The KKK focused on their silly racism, they didn't focus on being pro-Life. The Tea Party stands for limited government. Individually, they may have other beliefs, but they're brought together by their belief in limited government. I'm glad you figured it out.
Sure thing. As you mentioned yesterday, you're being a hypocrite for supporting Obamacare while not agreeing with every particular of it.
And those individual beliefs, in many cases, may be in direct opposition to that belief in limited government.
For those that don't get the Tea Party, remember that one of their primary planks is making government more local. They're Federalists, who believe in the states having more power than the Federal government.
I figured out that nobody needs to go to a rally to know their beliefs. Unless you've been in attendance at KKK rallies?
The parts I disagreed with didn't directly contradict the parts I did agree with. That's where your logic breaks down. One can have beliefs of differing tiers without being contradictory. For example, I believe in both gay rights and environmentalism, and gay rights is on a much higher tier. However, and crucially, the environmentalism doesn't contradict the stance on gay rights. If I joined a party that placed gay rights as its key point but had no position on environmentalism, it wouldn't be hypocritical to join them, because my pro-environment position doesn't contradict the gay rights platform. However, if I joined a party that placed environmentalism as its top priority and personally believed in reducing emissions standards for auto companies, I would be hypocritical. So, no, it wasn't hypocritical to agree with some aspects of the health care reform and not others. It is hypocritical to define yourself, politically, by limited government and then hold positions that call for greater government intrusion.
You insinuated that someone shouldn't be able to say what the Tea Party is for if they have not been to their rallies. Yet you are able to say what the KKK stands for.
Read slowly so you understand: The Tea Party's stated goal is limited government and adherence to the Constitution. It's not these other issues brought up by people who oppose the Tea Party's goals that get to decide for which the Tea Party stands. I've never been to a KKK rally, but it's clear what their stated goal is. As a non-member of the KKK, would it make sense if I defined what else the KKK stood for based on what some individual members may think?
