Wish Americans want an Oligarchy not a Utopia since we continue to support candidates that serve the wealthy landed class not the people.

The libertarian values that the tea party should stand for are not the values that the "teabagger" candidates are pushing.

Skrum since you are quibbling with the semantics of my statement, you think bans on recognizing gay marriage should be part of a platform that is arguing for libertarian values?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

Our great country was founded on religious freedom, not on using religion to create policies. Religion shapes the person you are, not the policies of your government.

Our government was originally established to provide freedom and equality to its people. Then a few years later it was decided maybe it should provide law, order, and protection rather than leaving that up to the states.

Now the government regulates trade and commerce, and gives free handouts to the needy and lazy (mostly lazy).

I am willing to accept that the government should have a small hand in economic regulation. Like making sure environmental damage is minimized and mitigated, and protecting people from dangerous products. Price regulation is overstepping though.

As far as the government sponsored charity goes though: its a bunch of bull crap. If your neighbors want to be charitable its one thing. they are making a choice to help you. It is completely inapropriate for the government to force us to be charitable though. I would even go so far as to say that it is potentially unconstitutional, but that is a somewhat difficult argument to make. I haven't really formulated it in full, but my argument goes something like this: Liberty, justice and equality for all peoples are then end goal of the constitution. Government paid for welfare, medicare, and other aid programs violate the equality and justice goals of the constitution. The government robs Peter to pay Paul because Paul has no job. However Peter is not eligible for this same service because he makes to much money. This is not equality in treatment.

So the questions becomes this, did the founding father mean for all people to be treated equal and be given the same opportunities by their governing body, or did they mean to use the government to make all people economically and socially equal?

Can I get a big warm welcome back to forums please?

Sam, you're wrong. There is no evidence to suggest that any party supports an oligarchy.

How can you in good faith generate national government programs that tax individuals who do not want to be taxed? The IRS was founded over 100 years AFTER our government was formed to recoup loses by the civil war. What makes you think that program should still exist today?

I left out the freedom from religious persecution bit on purpose btw, it didn't tie into my economic argument. And the somewhat unclear point of my post was that the government spends way to much money on programs that are in conflict with the original intent of the founding fathers.

Tangent on the IRS, but directly related because the IRS protected by the 16th amendment distributes MY money to programs I don't support. Sorry for the SLANT connection, but I'll help you out on this one.

Sam, I think you are dead on with religion. It should influence the person and the decisions that person makes. We cannot however force religious ideals on others through law. I think this works both ways though. We also can't stifle religious influences. So if the people in an area want there schools to teach the Bible, Koran, Talmud, or Kama Sutra the government shouldn't be allowed to step in and say no.

@ Skrum: A "right" does not entail a claim on a third party. A right to privacy (the essential backbone of Roe v Wade) does not present a claim on a third party. A right to vote does not present a claim on a third party. A right to refuse self-incrimination does not present a claim on a third party. A right to bear arms does not present a claim on a third party. And so on and so forth. Frankly, the right to cross-examine a witness does not present a claim on the witness, but rather on society on a whole. The same is true for all of the other rights that we commonly hold dear.

In the case of same-sex marriages, the claim is made on society to extend the same freedoms enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. Frankly, the whole concept of "marriage" commonly misconstrued. The uproar against same-sex marriage arises from bigoted religious considerations, not from any legitimate civil issue. When two people get married (enter into a legally sanctioned civil union) they are required to obtain a license to do so from the state. The religious ceremony, which most people hold as the legitimizing process of the marriage, is totally secondary in the eyes of the law. You do not have to have any religious ceremony in order to be married, but you do have to follow civil procedure. The concept that two adults can be discriminated against based solely on their gender is contrary to the entire thrust of US equal rights legislation. In any other area, discrimination on the basis of gender is strictly prohibited, yet religious bigotry still infects the law with regard to "marriage".

If an organized religion wishes to prohibit same-sex couples from obtaining religious approval of their union, that is fine. They are free to impose whatever ludicrous restrictions they like, just as they are free to maintain faith in whatever ludicrous superstitions they hold dear. However, religious superstitions and bigotries should definitely not influence or control civil law.

Homer said: "...So if the people in an area want there schools to teach the Bible, Koran, Talmud, or Kama Sutra the government shouldn't be allowed to step in and say no."

Absolutely correct, as long as the school is private and not funded by tax dollars. Teaching comparative religions is fine, as long as the curriculum is unbiased and not simply an indoctrination in favor of one religion in particular. However, the concept that "intelligent design" should be taught as a science is simply ludicrous. You may as well present as science the creation myths of the Navajo, ancient Greeks, Norse, etc. It is truly amusing that proponents of teaching intelligent design go crazy when you suggest that they should represent as science the myths of other religions or cults.

BTW, a cult is a cult whether it has 10 members, or 1,000,000,000 members. And the only cult of which I approve is the one that needs "more cow bell".

"Am I right when I believe that they hate pretty much everything that's not white, male, straight, married, and rich?"

This is the liberal media talking...please stop believing them.

While I'm not a true supporter of the Tea Party, they are the product of 2 years of full fledged liberalism in the US Federal Government. Someone like JP thinks Obama hasn't been liberal enough, but were he any further left he'd have a much more despondant voting populace. Truth be told, the Tea Party birth and Republican rebirth can all be traced to the POTUS. Even now all he can do is continue to blame our problems on the previous administration.

I asked the question a long time ago about when the countries problems would belong to Obama and no longer Bush. Apparantly that day still hasn't come.

To answer your question of whether I'd vote for a Tea Party candidate, my answer would be yes unless there was a viable Independant that could WIN the election. Otherwise I'm voting for whomever has the best chance to unseat a democrat.

American liberals wish for a more socialist, European way of life. I suggest they move to France or Greece and try it out for awhile.

As for ideas to fix our economy, by all means TAX ME MORE. However, don't start taxing me till you've made some decisions on where to cut back on spending. Cut the spending first, then increase your Federal revenue. Don't tax and spend like every other democratic executive before you. Where do we cut spending? ENTITLEMENTS!!!! Stop giving our money away. I've read an assortment of articles about people staying on unemployment because it pays more than a job they can obtain. People actually have a job they can get and they stay on TAX PAYERS dimes anyways. Fuck that. Cut the entitlements and tell people to get off their fat asses and get back to work. I don't give a shit if you have to scrub toilets or sweep streets. Get a job.