# The Tea Party is not socially conservative my ass **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 11, 2010, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760 "2010-10-11T06:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/221 "2010-10-13T01:36:05Z")
> [@Plan\_B](#): > > So, according to #212 more than half of Tea Partiers are in disagreement with the Christian Right. Shockingly low for those who profess libertarian ideals. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/222 "2010-10-13T01:49:08Z")
> [@Plan\_B](#): > > So, according to #212 more than half of Tea Partiers are in disagreement with the Christian Right. > > And, I’m not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but IIRC Obama is opposed to gay marriage. So what does that say about Dems, liberals, people who voted for him, etc? Says nothing, he doesn’t speak for us. We are a loosely connected association of like minded individuals who were fed up with the direction the country was taken during 7 years of Republican rule. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/223 "2010-10-13T01:51:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > …You could say that of the Reform Party. Where is it now?.. In Limbo, awaiting their arrival. The Tea Party will either be re-absorbed into the Republican Party, or they will vanish. > [@](#): > > …Then how do they expect to accomplish anything? What **do** they want to accomplish?! There is a subtle distinction between a political movement and a protest movement. The Tea Party is much more a protest movement. Shit, they don’t even have the discipline of the _progressive_ movement,and we are the very definition of a herd of cats! The tighty righty side has oodles of discipline, and are eagerly offering its availability. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/224 "2010-10-13T01:56:45Z")
The proud stalwarts of the Tea Party Have lusts that are hearty but naughty Such as offering their sacks As mid-morning snacks To all and to sundry! How haughty! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/225 "2010-10-13T01:57:49Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@Plan\_B](#): > > > > So, according to #212 more than half of Tea Partiers are in disagreement with the Christian Right. > > Shockingly low for those who profess libertarian ideals. When Ayn Rand met William F. Buckley, the first thing she said to him was, “You are too intelligent to believe in God.” ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/226 "2010-10-13T02:03:55Z")
A political movement has certain goals and/or principles that characterize it as such. If one insists that no such tenets exist, one is intrinsically admitting that no movement exists. The fact of the matter is that the Tea Party movement has chosen a number of candidates in Republican primaries and put forward decrees in various states. Those are the leaders and the principles. They are certainly not libertarian and little different from the previous GOP, which is not surprising given how the movement got started. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/227 "2010-10-13T02:09:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then how do they expect to accomplish anything? What **do** they want to accomplish?! They are not there for their own benefit-they are there for the benefit of the conservatives. The Tea-baggers sling the mud that conservatives used to have to throw themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/228 "2010-10-13T02:12:03Z")
> [@Morella](#): > > > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > > Even generously assuming that to be true, it happened in the early-to-mid 1800s. What’s the Tea Party’s excuse for embracing it in 2010? > > What makes you think that the Tea Party embraces racism? This from someone who uses the word “diaperhead?” > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m not sure that’s a valid argument. There aren’t any black people at hockey games, either, but it doesn’t mean the NHL is racist. Well, there are [these guys](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ice_hockey_players_of_Black_African_descent). (Granted though, a lot of them are from CANADA, the fucking commies. ;)) (Uh, people – you can’t link to searches.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/229 "2010-10-13T02:17:08Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > A political movement has certain goals and/or principles that characterize it as such. If one insists that no such tenets exist, one is intrinsically admitting that no movement exists. > > The fact of the matter is that the Tea Party movement has chosen a number of candidates in Republican primaries and put forward decrees in various states. Those are the leaders and the principles. They are certainly not libertarian and little different from the previous GOP, which is not surprising given how the movement got started. Well, the [Contract from America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Tea_Party_agenda_.22Contract_from_America.22) says: > [@](#): > > The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[69][70] > > 1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%) > 2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the “cap and trade” administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%) > 3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%) > 4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue Code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%) > 5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%) > 6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%) > 7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%) > 8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%) > 9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%) > 10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%) Which is libertarian at least in the smaller-government sense, and there is nothing in it about gay marriage or abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/230 "2010-10-13T02:25:51Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I give no apologies. You have no points, just tired lame talking points that get trotted out too often. You conveniently forget the many “conservatives” who would regularly trot out the traitor get out kick your ass bullshit, don’t you. You conveniently forget the endless instances many of us have wasted our time in the past disproving all the bullshit that gets spewed over and over again. To hell with searching and sorting and organizing the "cites again. Say whatever crazy dumb ass shit you want. I will do the same. Fight ignorance? After regurgitating the same shit year after year, and ignoring contrary cites year after year, I’m not going to bother. It’s just the same tired shit all over again. I asked for no apologies. I simply pointed to your post to illustrate the kind of crap that gets said about conservatives around here hundreds of times a day, and to explain why I post the way I do. (And where on this board is all that “traitor get out kick your ass bullshit” that you appear to be claiming conservatives on this board say all the time? I hardly ever see it and on those rare occasions when I do it’s usually said by somebody that ends up getting banned shortly.) And as far as your determination to post “whatever crazy dumb ass shit” you want, I say knock yourself out. > [@Robot Arm](#): > > I can’t cite that I didn’t insult you before that, but you’re welcome to look. That’s all well and good but I asked to you point to where I insulted you without provocation, not simply to post the insult itself. How am I supposed to be able to determine if the insult was unwarranted if I don’t know what preceeded it? And no, I’m not only not gonna look it up. For one thing there isn’t anything there that this board’s search engine could key on. But I do have a recollection of your claiming that specific insult was unwarranted once before and I was able to show that you had indeed insulted me first. I also find it very fishy that you didn’t link to it yourself, especially when I’d offered to apologize if I was wrong. One would think you’d be champing at the bit to get that apology and it’s more than a little suspicious that you chose not to post a link to the appropriate thread. I hope it doesn’t turn out that you’re a dishonest person after all and that I was wrong when I said you seemed to be a good guy. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/231 "2010-10-13T02:32:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > When Ayn Rand met William F. Buckley, the first thing she said to him was, “You are too intelligent to believe in God.” And Buckley’s response, as he related the story to Charlie Rose, was, “I’m afraid you’re going to have to document that.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/232 "2010-10-13T02:36:17Z")
She had to go get a retraining order? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/233 "2010-10-13T02:37:44Z")
> [@Plan\_B](#): > > So, according to #212 more than half of Tea Partiers are in disagreement with the Christian Right. That’s a lot to be reading into a survey that merely reports that nearly half identify themselves members of the Christian conservative movement. Lotta daylight between “not self-identifying as a member” of a movement and “disagreeing with” that movement. Not to mention that it begs the question of whether “Christian conservative movement” and “Christian Right” are interchangeable terms. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/234 "2010-10-13T02:40:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > > Then how do they expect to accomplish anything? What **do** they want to accomplish?! > > They are not there for their own benefit-they are there for the benefit of the conservatives. The Tea-baggers sling the mud that conservatives used to have to throw themselves. Yup. Ask the folks who financed this Astroturf, and you’ll know what they want to accomplish. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/235 "2010-10-13T02:44:31Z")
I was so surprised to hear that the Tea Party had such a strong position on net neutrality, and so much supported the positions of Comcast and Verizon. I may have mentioned that. Sure tried. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/236 "2010-10-13T03:30:17Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > As for why my general posting style is the way it is, take a look at how **squeels** and **SteveG1** portray conservatives in post 181. This board is full of posters saying shit like that, and no one here on this board, allegedly devoted to fighting ignorance, ever calls them down for it. So, just to make sure that no one comes to develop the belief that these guys must be right because no one refutes them, I do…and in kind. And why in kind? Because it’s utterly, uttlery impossible to have a civilized discussion about politics around here that even begins to stray from the liberal party line, with any attempt to do so immediately swamped by twenty posters shouting the most ridiculous kinds of bullshit. So just to make sure that my points get heard above the din and that liberalism and the consequences of it don’t get a free pass, I post the way I do. It isn’t a style I prefer in my personal life but it’s the one I’ve found most effective around here. Yup, it’s everyone else’s fault. Never your own. Never because you’re an asshole, a partisan windbag, a lair, or a jerk. It’s everyone else’s fault. You post like a raving lunatic because this board is too liberal. Not because what you post is crap, it’s because we’re all so liberal, and you’re so conservative. It has nothing to do with you being a conservative. Even the conservatives on this board won’t defend you, you are an embarrassment to them. You are a giant cliche. You haven’t made a valid point in all the years I’ve been here. You spew garbage and nonsense until you run out of hot air, then declare victory so you can go off to another thread to do it all again. You have yet to answer for the lies you posted [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=580311), and when you got called on it you scampered away in tears. [In this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=580603) you were asked for cites to back up the many bogus claims you made. And in response you had the gall to ask for $20 per cite! After countless attempts to tap dance away from the issue you posted a google search for only mildly related terms. It wasn’t even the search phrase you were supposed to be looking for! What you’ll see in those two threads, plus this one, plus countless others, are everyone’s attempt to fight your ignorance, but mostly just a lot of people laughing at you. Seriously, go play with your grandkids, have a beer, listen to some Elton John, and take a nap. We’ll do just fine fighting ignorance without you, and I’m pretty sure the conservative members of this board would gladly welcome you not “helping.” ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/237 "2010-10-13T04:09:43Z")
But Elton John’s post-1968!!! He’s part of those “hippies!!!” :rolleyes: **Starving Artist** , we don’t give you shit because you’re conservative. We give you shit because you’re stupid. And stupid knows no political ideology. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/238 "2010-10-13T04:13:54Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > > [@Robot Arm](#): > > > > I can’t cite that I didn’t insult you before that, but you’re welcome to look. > > That’s all well and good but I asked to you point to where I insulted you without provocation, not simply to post the insult itself. How am I supposed to be able to determine if the insult was unwarranted if I don’t know what preceeded it? And no, I’m not only not gonna look it up. For one thing there isn’t anything there that this board’s search engine could key on. I posted the insult. I can’t link the provocation because it doesn’t exist. You want to see what preceeded that post? See where it says "Originally posted by **Starving Artist** ’, and then there’s a little arrow? Click on that arrow. You’ll go directly to the post in question, with all the context you could ever want. If that post includes a quote, click on that arrow the follow the discussion backwards. No searching necessary. And let me make it easier, here is the [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12251310#post12251310) to where you insulted me. The full thread, in plain view, available to everyone and anyone. > [@](#): > > But I do have a recollection of your claiming that specific insult was unwarranted once before and I was able to show that you had indeed insulted me first. The one time this subject came up before, you said it wasn’t an insult; that saying you “couldn’t believe” I was that stupid meant that you actually had a reasonable opinion of my intelligence. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12400795#post12400795) is that post, in its full context. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12400123#post12400123) is where you said my behavior was “assholey”. > [@](#): > > I also find it very fishy that you didn’t link to it yourself, especially when I’d offered to apologize if I was wrong. One would think you’d be champing at the bit to get that apology and it’s more than a little suspicious that you chose not to post a link to the appropriate thread. I hope it doesn’t turn out that you’re a dishonest person after all and that I was wrong when I said you seemed to be a good guy. There it is; all linked and in context. Just one click away. You say I must have provoked you? You say you’ve already shown it once before? Fine, show it now. Until then, let this thread stand as evidence of your dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/239 "2010-10-13T04:22:53Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > [ You say I must have provoked you? You say you’ve already shown it once before? Fine, show it now. > > Until then, let this thread stand as evidence of your dishonesty. He’ll find the link for you, but it will cost you $20 ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/240 "2010-10-13T04:24:27Z")
Now we wait while he moves the goal posts around. Queue bullshit attempt to blame liberals in three…two…[the one is silent] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760.md?page=13)