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.
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.