Posted on 08/02/2010 12:11:35 PM PDT by massmike
Just keep refusing to answer then.
And if you are so done then why are you asking me questions?
The TEA party is about changing the direction of an out of control government that denies its citizens true representation and continually expands it’s size and power. It is about restoring limited government and individual liberty.
Issues considered ‘social conservitism’ are also about the same exact things though you seem to have a problem with that.
So of course I will and have participated in the TEA party and will continue to address people like you who try and distort and minimize it’s goals.
The Tea Party was created when Rick Santelli went on tv and said we are having a Tea Party protest of government spending. If you want social issues in the Tea Party, bring it up with Rick.
Otherwise, stop trying to hijack someone else’s movement.
Btw, I never said social conservatives should go elsewhere. Just that the Tea Party should not be about social conservatism. And I bet that is the only part of this post you respond too, trying to twist it, the coward that you are.
I agree that the TEA party was kick started by Santelli statements but that in no way shows that it is or should be limited the way that you would like it to be.
It is you who are a coward and is trying to force your own agenda upon the movement though. You want the TEA party movement to be softer and more appealing to Marxist liberal losers who want to force their cowardly peverted morality upon us all.
The TEA party started based upon Constitutional issues whereas they opposed takeovers and bailouts by the federal government to poison the free market. It started with an opposition to out of control government oppression of the people by disregarding their right to representation on these issues by claiming a crisis. The TEA party started with an opposition to a democrat party pushing radical agendas.
All of these issues are right in line with social conservative issues.
There is no way A coward like you who wants to be cozy with the perverts and fascists of the left-wing is going to change that. It is you who is trying to hijack a movement and not me.
Well, if Santelli started it, and it was based on spending, then that is what the group is about. Doesnt matter if you like it or not, that is the case. I can show proof where Santelli started this, you dont have anything to show it was started by someone else. The only person trying to inject their ideas into the Tea Party is you.
I dont want marxism in the tea party, because marxism is the opposite of free enterprise.
Santelli though did not start the movement. His comments only helped kick start the movement. Big difference. You offer proof of nothing but just hyberbole about Santelli.
You have already stated that you want social liberals in the TEA party movement who support the Marxist agenda of the ‘abolition of family’. That is the case you have been arguing for.
So you can try and spin that you are not trying to subvert the TEA party to your own personal ideal of being cozy with Marxists but anyone with any knowledge of Marxism will know that you are a liar.
Who started it then?
If social liberals want smaller government and less spending, they should join the Tea Party. If social conservatives want smaller government and less spending, they should join the Tea Party.
There is a big difference in someone who wants govt out of their life and a Marxist, but you wont see that. You need everyone that has different social ideas than you to be called a marxist so that you can feel better about yourself.
The People started the movement. People who believe in limited government and individual liberty.
You are trying to make a case for Marxists to join the movement if they claim that they will cut spending and reduce taxes. Marxists will always play that game and lie about those issues as they pervert a movement.
Your position as well does not want government out of our lives because your argument is one that would pervert the TEA party movement to accept having trial lawyers and big government dictate to taxpayers and business what they have to believe by threat of finacial taxation through the Courts.
Your mistake is that you think that Marxism is only a fisal ideology when it is a social ideology as well. Just as conservatism is as well. You think you can accept the social Marxist as an ally while pissing in the face of a truee conservative. You are prescribing failure for the TEA party movement.
The TEA party will not succeed without strong support from social conservatives. Once you accept Marxism in any of it’s forms you will destroy any attempt at conserving individual liberty and limited government.
Sorry about not correcting my spelling before posting the last post. My bad.
They’re scared!
The GOP elite are actually transporting shills to TEA party rallys to disrupt them, taking a page from the union book.
“Tea party was a tax protest, not a social issues protest.”
.
The original certainly was, but the current movement is somewhat more social than fiscal in its composition. Opposition to the gay agenda is massive in the west.
We need both to win, and that gives clues to who the disruptors are.
.
The tea party is a tax protest. It exists as a popular movement of a conservative impulse, and as such can serve as an arena of ideas where conservatives can sell their issues.
How is geocentricism and anti-Catholocism selling these days?
What people? I can name a person, you cant. You dont get to decide what the movement is about, because it is not your movement.
Selling really well among the intelligent; not so good among the lower tier.
But yet you think that you get to decide and sit here preaching to me how we have to accept social Marxism as a part of the TEA party.
The people who started the movement are ‘We the People’. Everyday conservative Americans but you seem to not understand that. Maybe that is why you also do not understand what the movement is about as well.
The TEA party is about all aspects of the American conservative ideology (fiscal and social) and not a mixture of social Marxism and fiscal conservatism as you seem to believe.
You can keep on ranting about how I do not get to decide but you are really only showing your ignorance.
I have never claimed that I decide. I am only pointing out to you how mistaken you are about your beliefs.
You seem to think that social Marxism is consistent with the TEA party movement when it is not.
“I agree that the TEA party was kick started by Santelli statements but that in no way shows that it is or should be limited the way that you would like it to be.”
.
Exactly right! - You’ve got him in his corner now.
There is no such thing as a conservative that isn’t both socially and fiscally conservative, and that is what the movement is.
The “fiscals” are a shill wedge sent in to break the conservative movement and hand a victory to the degenerates.
.
“Who started it then?”
.
Mark Williams and Melanie Morgan were the public face of the beginning of the TEA movement.
.
No, Im not deciding anything. The Tea Party is not a social movement. I did not make that the case. It is self evident. You dont like that, so you call everyone who disagrees with you a Marxist.
I understand who goes to the rallies. I know social conservatives are there and they are welcome. But the movement is not about that.
You still cant show 1 example of a “social conservative 1st” person who started the movement, only some lame MSM “the people” crap. About as reliable as “some say.”
You are such a Marxist!
Mark Williams, the guy who was kicked out of the Tea PArty Express, not the Tea Party? When did he start the Tea Party? Or are you changing the wordage to movement so you can fit the TPE into the TP?
Ron Pul had a “Tea Party” moneybomb in 08. In Feb 09, Rick Santelli and Dave Ramsey talked about a Tea Party. The first protests were in Feb sponsored by Freedom Works. The movement is fiscal. I dont know why that bothers you, other than you cant control it. Are you a closeted marxist?
No one is saying socons shouldnt be in, just that social issues are not the focus of this particular movement. Just as finance is not the focus of right to life movements, even though they would welcome people who care about the economy.
Childish shill!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.