Posted on 08/02/2010 12:11:35 PM PDT by massmike
What use is it to have representatives but not be allowed representation on an issue? On the issue of when life begins the people are being denied representation by the Judicial branch. The left-wing seeks the same denyal of our right to representatinn on the issue of defining marraige and on other issues of how sexuality is dealt with in public and in people’s private businesses.
On issue after issue the left-wing seeks to deny the people our right to representation.
Well you act as if you do. You do not want the issue addressed by the Tea party even though it is a fiscal issue everybit as much as it is a social issue.
Right here in my state (NJ) the Court ordered the legislature to represent them on the issue of how marraige is dealt with and not the people. The Court ordered the legislature to write a law for them and not the people.
Because I think the Tea Party should stick to tax and spend issues, that means Im cool with re-defining marriage?
Pretty twisted logic.
Yet I have already explained that it is a fiscal issue and yet you continue to pursue attacking my posts without even addressing that. Your whole point is that you want to purge the Tea party of what you think are unworthy issues. You expect that the Tea party should accept some aspects of big government intruding on business and taxpayers. That is what is twisted logic.
It sure seems as if you accept it enough to not want it to be an issue within the Tea party. I guess having big government dictating to business through the threat of lawsuits and taking their hard earned money unless they conform and accept a certain perverted form of morality is an alright TAX for you to accept.
And you are not even to accept that the issue is being attacked by trying to deny the people a right to representation on the issue.
So by your twisted logic the TEA party should accept this form of taxation without representation and not fight against it.
No, you want it to be fiscal. In that sense, religious tax breaks are fiscal. Why not get rid of them. Fighting social issues is great for a different battlefield.
Just because I dont attack from the North doesnt mean I wont attack from the East. Its not an all or nothing thing.
No it is a fiscal issue. Every taxpayer and business that has been milked for their money over this issue already know that.
And it must be some more of your twisted logic to suggest that the TEA party should support creating more taxes for more areas of life including worship.
So far the only attack you have made against my points are from the left. You want to have the TEA party endorse and support candidates that hold to a left-wing big government agenda.
I'm about as pro-RTKBA as they come. I don't see RTKBA as needing to be an official Tea Party issue. The purpose of the Tea Party is to cut government spending and taxation. Period. If you want to promote RTKBA, organize an RTKBA rally.
Multiplying issues diverts focus, and not everybody is in lockstep on all the issues. For example, I've met a number of anti-abortion Christians who are very much against any reduction in welfare, since eliminating welfare might cause a young woman to choose abortion.
I agree 100%.
The TEA party is a call back to the battle that took place to form this nation and our Constitution.
For anyone to claim that only certain Constitutional issues are allowed to be represented within the TEA party movement is absurd.
You can not claim that we do not want big government in only fiscal areas alone. The TEA party is about all Constitutional issues and our representation as a People.
The movement about taxes, evoking a famous tax protest in our nation's history, doesn't have to attempt to carry every issue you think should be tacked onto its back.
We can probably get most working Americans to agree that their taxes are too high. Start tacking on all sorts of social issues and less and less people agree, and you dilute the simple and clear message.
Apparently your pet cause is “homo-perversion”, and that has NOTHING to do with if taxes are too high or not.
No one from the fiscal group has addressed my concerns about a constitutional convention yet.
Do you see a constitutional convention as a viable path to economic reform?
Yet if you think that a TEA party that starts endorsing and supporting candidates who promote a left-wing big government agenda in regards to denying people the right to representation on issues and threatening citizens and businesses with lawsuits robbing them of their hard earned money and rights will go anywhere you are sadly mistaken.
Your ideal of a Tea party that is PURE to only certain issues is a prescription for failure.
The real Tea party did not stop at only one or two issues but was one part of a battle for our rights against tyranny overall. That is what this nation needs again. A fight for ALL of our rights and not just what you want to limit it to.
I guess I have to show my ignorance here but what is RKBA?
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Thank You.
I guess there are some who want to redefine what the TEA party movement means and claim that our Founders didn’t want this right defended either?
Of course though if they can take your guns then they can much more easily take your property and money as well.
It seems that there is a movement by phony libertarians and RINOs to minimize what the TEA party movement stands for.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Discussion of a con con is off the table for me! My answer will always be no!
If the Tea Party Movement is, in fact, going to go the con con fiscal route they'd best start being up front about it. It will save on tar and feathers when people find out they've been had.
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.