Posted on 08/02/2010 12:11:35 PM PDT by massmike
Yes, you are. But what would you expect from a marxist like yourself with no facts to rebut an argument.
So your point is that the TEA party movement is somehow neutral in regards to all social issues?
Sometimes they could support a social Marxist who claims to be fiscally conservative and then maybe they can support support social conservatists as well sometimes?
You want to claim that the TEA party is neutral on all social issues?
You are proving yourself to be a complete phony here at FR if you want to argue such a point.
As I have already pointed out many times but you have never addressed even once though you waste my time, social Marxism believes in the ‘Abolition of family’. It believes in using the Court to redistribute wealth and power in the market place. It seeks to deny the People our right to representation on issues. If you support having that type of social Marxism in the TEA party movement then you are a exposing yourself as someone who is here to undermine our rights and our country.
Well if this is true it shows there is no unity. I will not and can support any candidate who does not take a stand on social issues. If Family, community, immigration, our culture right to life et al are not in the forefront I don’t give damn about the money. You worshipers of the golden Calf have much more in common with the Left than you’ll ever have with social conservatives. Not to mention that many fiscal issues are social in nature. Just what exactly do people think drives much of this out of control government and spending?
You want to call others here at FR marxists??? yet you are the one who is sitting here arguing that the TEA party needs to stay neutral in regards to social issues being fought out between the American Marxist and the American conservative.
Gay rights, murdering babies, and denying people a right to have a say on these issues is all good to you.
Having taxpayers and businesses threatened by big government lawsuits is all good for you as well.
You are a pathetic phony.
You call me a marxist when you are trying to control other’s actions. You are a marxist, in the fascist type. Sorry if the truth hurts ya.
Should the NRA or Chamber of Commerce have a social opinion?
And your retarded jumps from me saying the Tea Party should focus on fiscal issues to you saying that I support murdering babies show that you are not very bright, which goes along with you being a marxist.
You are a pathetic phony.
I am trying to control other people’s actions? How is that?
And also your reading skills are not so good. I never called you a Marxist. I simply claimed that you want to get cozy with them and make them a part of the TEA party.
It is you who have called others here a Marxist simply because they disagreed with you.
And I also never claimed that you supported murdering babies. I simply claimed that you supported having social Marxists who do support murdering babies join the TEA party as long as they claim that they want to be fiscally conservative.
It is you who are a phony and who supports having phony conervatives represent the TEA party. You have argued over and over that social Marxism is acceptable in the TEA party and that those who dont agree you will call names.
Personally I think that you have just bit off more then you can chew (so to speak). You have really dug a hole for yourself in how you insist on supporting SOCIAL Marxists in the TEA party movement.
I am not sure if you are just stupid or if you have an agenda but I know that one of these two is true.
You said “murdering babies...is good to you.
You are trying to control other people by trying to force a movement to adopt a tactic that you want because you think you know better. I never said we should support baby killing. I said that social issues should not be the purpose of the Tea Party. Why dont you start a social conservative movement, and then you can do whatever you want with it?
I guess calling you a marxist gets you all flustered, so Ill tone it down and call you a Leninist.
You haven’t at all explained how I am ‘forcing’ anyone to do anything. You sound alot like the leftwingers that claim that conservatives are trying to force their morality on others when it is really them who use tactics that try to force their perverted morality on people without giving them representation and a say on the issue.
I am not trying to force anyone to do anything. You must be getting tired or something. You are acting like a child who is rebelling against their parents. I am only trying to get you see how wrong you are. Possibly a waste of time though.
On your other point.....
I said that you are ok with murdering babies because you have said that you are ok with welcoming in people to represent the TEA party who do. Try to understand that dosen’t mean that I am saying that you do. I am just pointing out that you have no problem getting cozy with the Marxists who do. Try and see the difference.
People were getting fed up about our representatives not listening to us. Rick Santelli had a rant. That rant went viral. Individual people got together and formed local grass-roots groups to try to make their voices heard. They called it having tea parties. Rick Santelli doesn't run it, he didn't start it, he just gave a name that other people used as a rallying point.
There is not a "Tea Party Movement" as such. What there is, is people fed up with government and getting active for the first time in their lives.
Yes, fiscal issues are important to most if not all groups under the Tea Party umbrella. But saying all groups must include social issues, or all groups can not include social issues is like a Homeowners Association in Duluth telling a Homeowners Association in Dallas that they must include snow removal regulations, or the Dallas group telling the Duluth group that they must not include snow removal regulations. Remember: all politics is local.
The only thing that all Tea Party groups must have in common is conservatism. If some groups want to concentrate solely on reducing taxes, great! If some groups want to concentrate solely on reigning in the judiciary, wonderful! If some groups want to cover all the bases, fantastic! If some groups can't come to an agreement on what they want to be about, then they're too big and need to split up!
This is a grass-roots movement of people coming together to try to make their voices heard. Trying to turn it into some official monolithic group will only lead to its downfall, and give our opponents the opportunity group everyone together and attack everyone with a single statement. The recent NAACP bruhaha is a prime example of what they can try to do if the Tea Party is viewed as one vast organization. And one organization can be more easily corrupted than thousands of small groups.
Anyone who claims to be a leader in the Tea Party movement should be shunned, IMHO. There is no leader. Anyone who says he is, is just trying to get more control.
Everybody here arguing about what should or should not be part of the message doesn't get it! Find a group that believes the way you do, and join it. If you want to influence other groups, you are part of the problem. Get out of the way, and let "the people" have free association. A "common message" won't bring about the changes this country needs. Giving "the people" a voice just might. Excluding anyone will reduce the voice of "the people." So stop arguing and get busy making your voices heard.
Very well said. I do not disagree at all. My point was that the TEA party movement is not limited to fiscal conservatism alone and that it has much more in common with social conservatism then it has with social liberalism or social Marxism.
The thread of course made this an issue because of a certain attempt by some in one TEA party movement to purge itself of social conservatives in favor of social Marxists. This is something that we all must be aware of. I am not saying that we need to force this certain group to change its stance but that I would not support any specific part of the TEA party movement that gets cozy with social Marxism or other far left-wing stances. I would call them out on it as well.
You said: “The only thing that all Tea Party groups must have in common is conservatism.”
This I think really hits the nail on the head. If the TEA party movement loses this ideal due to a false perception that it has to be friendly to social liberals and Marxists then it will lose its purpose.
Learn to read. I have never said “must” or “poll” nor did I say that anyone ‘can’t’ join. Your statement about my position is total BS.
If you would even have taken the time to read the article of how it is the exact opposite way around whereas ‘social conservatives’ were being shunned in order to make things more cozy for social liberals (or social Marxists). And your position that it doesn’t matter whether someone is a social Marxist or not as long as they claim to be for fiscal conservatism is total BS as well. Marxists have continually lied about certain of their positions in order to corrupt the political process endlessly.
Ok, I overstated your position. When you said: "I am not saying that we need to force this certain group to change its stance but that I would not support any specific part of the TEA party movement that gets cozy with social Marxism or other far left-wing stances" you were just saying that any group that is fiscal-only wouldn't get your support; and "I would call them out on it as well" means you would oppose them. I apologize for missing the distinction before.
If you would even have taken the time to read the article of how it is the exact opposite way around whereas ‘social conservatives’ were being shunned in order to make things more cozy for social liberals
Yes, I did read the article, and re-read it just now to make sure I didn't miss something.
And your position that it doesn’t matter whether someone is a social Marxist or not as long as they claim to be for fiscal conservatism is total BS as well
Except you don't know what my position is. I never stated my position, or how I personally felt about the Lexington Battle Green situation.What I did say is each group has the right to concentrate on a particular issue, such as taxing and spending, if they so wish, and therefore can limit discussion and speakers to that particular topic. Since the discussion on this thread seemed to have moved past discussion of this particular event, I addressed my general concern about people fighting each other when that seemed to me to be unnecessary and antiproductive.
Now if you want my personal opinion: Without knowing all the details, it does seem like canceling the Lexington tea party was an overreaction and a mistake. Christen Varley appears to have acted improperly when convincing other speakers to not attend. Was she one of the organizers of the Lexington party, or just butting in? If she wasn't one of the organizers, what were the objectives of those that did organize the party?
I also personally believe that tackling the social and moral decay of the nation is imperative to saving it. My beliefs track fairly closely to the Constitution Party's platform. I may even be more of a social conservative than you are, or I may not. Neither one of us knows without comparing notes.
Does that clarify things a little?
Apology accepted. But….
I did though know your position because you already stated it. You said “If their focus is completely and only lower taxes, it doesn’t matter what members’ social, judicial, literalist, revisionist, or fascist ideas are. “
You didn’t state this as if you were only claiming it to be their right but that it was your position. You claimed that it didn’t matter. I disagree with this position because it will allow the social Marxist the open door to corrupting the TEA party cause.
As has been pointed out throughout this thread there are always direct correlations between policies considered social and policies considered fiscal. Courts are used to attack taxpayers and businesses all of the time based upon leftwing social policy positions. Being that the TEA party movement is most concerned with the endorsement and support of candidates it would lead to corruption of the movement not to have some consideration for all aspects of policy (social & fiscal) that a candidate would support. And as you said earlier the TEA party has no leader so there is no such rule that we must be neutral on policy considered to be social policy.
Here today even we are knowing seeing reports of left-wing activists trying to corrupt and manipulate the TEA party movement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2565274/posts
To claim that being a member of the TEA party means turning a blind eye to who and what a candidate is fully about in order to make it a neutral movement for the social Marxist claiming to be fiscally conservative or for the Code Pink moonbat “defund the military” type to join is foolish.
You do not have to agree with me but that is my position. I will make it known whether be it here or at TEA party event or anywhere.
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.