tk421;935652 wrote:I thought the Democrats were the party of tolerance. Why would they call the Tea Party members stuff like that if they are the party of tolerance?

Because those people are fucking stupid.

I Wear Pants;935655 wrote:Because those people are fucking stupid.

Oh, so it's only tolerance of people whose views you agree with?

tk421;935679 wrote:Oh, so it's only tolerance of people whose views you agree with?

I meant the Democrats in that instance.

tk421;935589 wrote:I've got a question. If there are no more corporations, where will everyone work? For the government, is that what we will become?

duh, no one will have to work. we will live in self sufficient communities where this is no currency. everyone will just help everyone out.

Catchy tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeuGx8PplAo

What a lovely bunch of coconuts - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/powerful-ad-wonders-why-politicians-are-ignoring-occupy-protesters-anti-semitism/

I Wear Pants;935654 wrote:What I heard about the Tea Party was not that they were a mob or rioting. But that they were incredibly conservative in their views. Which is absolutely true.

There are two main Tea Party issues/beliefs:

1 - Attempt to adhere to the Constitution
2 - Attempt to maintain fiscal discipline/sanity

Apparently these two basic tenets are now "incredibly conservative". They used to be just regular ole Americana .......

majorspark;935896 wrote:Catchy tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeuGx8PplAo

All brought to you by obama and his America-hating activist/agitator groups.

With the dems and the socialists and marxists and communists lining up with the occupiers, we are at least getting to the clear delineations we need.

Change we can believe in ....

Thats what they should be, however they get labeled right or wrong as christian conservatives pushing their social issues too. Thus defeating the point of the tea party. That is the whole problem with this country is that social issues always linger behind any groups fiscal or govermental principles. Or the group will combine the issues. There is really no good way to solve this problem as social issues need relaxed to be updated for the modern society and government fiscal policy needs to be trimmed back to the founding principles. JMO.

QuakerOats;936602 wrote:There are two main Tea Party issues/beliefs:

1 - Attempt to adhere to the Constitution
2 - Attempt to maintain fiscal discipline/sanity

Apparently these two basic tenets are now "incredibly conservative". They used to be just regular ole Americana .......

As a fiscal conservative and social moderate, I'd like to see social conservatives keep their agendas separate. Now saying that, I also know that leftists (and the media) won't allow that message to come out clean. They will forever associate one with the other -- and use it as a way to bash both (conservative economic and social movements).

Yep, just like the TEA Party are these folks - http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/disgusting-obama-endorsed-occupy-wall-street-goons-deface-9-11-memorial-statue-in-zuccotti-park/

FWIW - I just talked to someone that was in NYC over the weekend. He said the cops (about 100 of them), the reporters, the TV traveling-vans, and the onlookers outnumber the "Occupiers". His impression was it looked like a hyped-up media event rather than any visible protest. Now, if Farakhan was involved, it would be known as a 10 million-man uprising and he wouldn't be doubted else be called a racist.

Writerbuckeye;936677 wrote:As a fiscal conservative and social moderate, I'd like to see social conservatives keep their agendas separate. Now saying that, I also know that leftists (and the media) won't allow that message to come out clean. They will forever associate one with the other -- and use it as a way to bash both (conservative economic and social movements).

The feds really have no business being in all these social issues. Leave that to the states and localities. The feds got plenty to handle with defense/foreign policy and fiscal matters.

QuakerOats;936602 wrote:There are two main Tea Party issues/beliefs:

1 - Attempt to adhere to the Constitution
2 - Attempt to maintain fiscal discipline/sanity

Apparently these two basic tenets are now "incredibly conservative". They used to be just regular ole Americana .......

That's what it started as. But now a whole heap of other things are lumped into it. Anti-abortion, immigration, etc.

OneBuckeye;936626 wrote:Thats what they should be, however they get labeled right or wrong as christian conservatives pushing their social issues too. Thus defeating the point of the tea party. That is the whole problem with this country is that social issues always linger behind any groups fiscal or govermental principles. Or the group will combine the issues. There is really no good way to solve this problem as social issues need relaxed to be updated for the modern society and government fiscal policy needs to be trimmed back to the founding principles. JMO.

I agree with that, however, social issues don't need relaxed, but as majorspark said, they need returned to states and localities. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree on every social issue, be it abortion, gay marriage, etc. The problem I (and many in the Tea Party) have is 9 justices in robes deciding what the prevailing standard of morality is for all 50 states, as they have done numerous times the past 50 years.

The problem with ignoring social/moral issues is that the minority will always feel offended by the majority, i.e., "How dare you tell me how to live" etc etc. When those issues are decided on a federal level, and not even by a majority in Congress in most cases, the offense gets magnified. If California wants to invent gay marriage or legalize abortion via their state legislatures, great, but Ohio and Texas and Iowa, etc etc shouldn't be bound by what 37 million kooks (OK not all of them are kooks) on the left coast think.

The difference on the federal level would be a constitutional amendment, which would have to be approved by super-majorities in Congress and 3/4th's of the states. Although that hasn't always been smooth either (as in the case of Prohibition).

I Wear Pants;936739 wrote:That's what it started as. But now a whole heap of other things are lumped into it. Anti-abortion, immigration, etc.

Yep, which has been the frustration.

It started out as a non-partisan movement to endorse fiscal responsibility at the federal level. It has had too much heaped on since then.

O-Trap;936824 wrote:Yep, which has been the frustration.

It started out as a non-partisan movement to endorse fiscal responsibility at the federal level. It has had too much heaped on since then.

I've read similar posts on here for awhile from many folks. I disagree, but it appears I'm in the minority. I believe the media, the Left, the anti-TEA Party crowd, and those engrained to live off the government teet until the country fails have done everything in their power to make the TEA Party APPEAR to be all these things. It started out with a simple mission and from the folks I congregate with, that has never changed. I think the new social labels were created and thrown like spiderwebs on us to the point they can't be wiped away. While some will retort with a link here or there from a "reputable source" that would have no compelling interest to disparage the TEA Party (wink wink; nudge nudge; say no more), the central tenets remain.

Those that would destroy it have tried to do so from inside the movement. I would remind everyone that there is no TEA Party "leader" and it isn't a damn political party. Yet...I read this shit all the time about how it is one. It's a movement, not a political party and if it should become one, it will fail. Which, by the way, is the goal of the detractors. See how this works? Knew you did.

BGFalcons82;936843 wrote:I've read similar posts on here for awhile from many folks. I disagree, but it appears I'm in the minority. I believe the media, the Left, the anti-TEA Party crowd, and those engrained to live off the government teet until the country fails have done everything in their power to make the TEA Party APPEAR to be all these things. It started out with a simple mission and from the folks I congregate with, that has never changed. I think the new social labels were created and thrown like spiderwebs on us to the point they can't be wiped away. While some will retort with a link here or there from a "reputable source" that would have no compelling interest to disparage the TEA Party (wink wink; nudge nudge; say no more), the central tenets remain.

Those that would destroy it have tried to do so from inside the movement. I would remind everyone that there is no TEA Party "leader" and it isn't a damn political party. Yet...I read this shit all the time about how it is one. It's a movement, not a political party and if it should become one, it will fail. Which, by the way, is the goal of the detractors. See how this works? Knew you did.

Then maybe the Tea Party folks should stop having people talk about those things at the rallies then? If it was about being fiscally conservative then Ron Paul or someone like him should have been one of the most visible people in the movement. Not Sarah Palin.

Palin can talk about fiscal sanity and nothing else -- and very well from what I've seen. Unfortunately, you, and leftists, and the media would STILL whine that her just being there blends in the social issues. That's a crock, of course.

Writerbuckeye;936884 wrote:Palin can talk about fiscal sanity and nothing else -- and very well from what I've seen. Unfortunately, you, and leftists, and the media would STILL whine that her just being there blends in the social issues. That's a crock, of course.

I've never seen her not talk about the social issues.

Writerbuckeye;936884 wrote:Palin can talk about fiscal sanity and nothing else -- and very well from what I've seen. Unfortunately, you, and leftists, and the media would STILL whine that her just being there blends in the social issues. That's a crock, of course.

Some issues cross both financial and social issues, and both sides put their spin on it. Immigration is a good example of this. Some people have their feelings towards immigration based solely towards the financial implications, while others have their views based upon their social beliefs.

BGFalcons82;936843 wrote:I believe the media, the Left, the anti-TEA Party crowd, and those engrained to live off the government teet until the country fails have done everything in their power to make the TEA Party APPEAR to be all these things.

For me, at least, it had nothing to do with any media. I was going to rallies early on, and the message was that both parties had screwed it up, and all parties ought to get on board with trying to fix it.

The last rally I went to had some guy talking about the "sanctity" of life and marriage. It got a mixed reaction, of course, but anyone who didn't agree with the speaker, myself included (on the marriage issue at the very least), seemed uneasy at the direction the rally took.

Since then, I've heard numerous others talk about similar experiences.

Since the Tea Party was not about anything but fiscal responsibility in every area of the spectrum (social programs, military, over-regulation of the private sector, etc.), inviting discussion and pontification about other divisive subjects did nothing but ostracize some who may have otherwise agreed.

It started out with a simple mission and from the folks I congregate with, that has never changed. I think the new social labels were created and thrown like spiderwebs on us to the point they can't be wiped away. While some will retort with a link here or there from a "reputable source" that would have no compelling interest to disparage the TEA Party (wink wink; nudge nudge; say no more), the central tenets remain.

Those that would destroy it have tried to do so from inside the movement. I would remind everyone that there is no TEA Party "leader" and it isn't a damn political party. Yet...I read this shit all the time about how it is one. It's a movement, not a political party and if it should become one, it will fail. Which, by the way, is the goal of the detractors. See how this works? Knew you did.[/QUOTE]

Writerbuckeye;936884 wrote:Palin can talk about fiscal sanity and nothing else -- and very well from what I've seen. Unfortunately, you, and leftists, and the media would STILL whine that her just being there blends in the social issues. That's a crock, of course.

She talks fiscal conservatism NOW, but it's now popular to discuss. At the onset of the Tea Party movement, she wasn't standing on that pedestal nearly so exclusively. If it's popularity changes, I guarantee her focus does as well.

I Wear Pants;936912 wrote:I've never seen her not talk about the social issues.

Then you haven't watched her talk very much, or more likely just through your existing (and well known) prism.

Writerbuckeye;936884 wrote:Palin can talk about fiscal sanity and nothing else -- and very well from what I've seen. Unfortunately, you, and leftists, and the media would STILL whine that her just being there blends in the social issues. That's a crock, of course.

But they damage their cause choosing such a polarizing figure to be a spokerperson. Part of the problem with the state of the media today, and perhaps even our pop-internet culture, is the moderate voices get little attention. As a result, we end-up bombarded with extremist views. It's not enough to talk about fiscal discipline and tax reform - you have to throw out radical ideas of returning to the gold standard and instituting the FairTax.

Ron Paul the proclaimed father of the tea party... 2012 campaign add addressing a social issue. Maybe you guys would just have Paul lay off the social issues too. Guess Paul is a fake too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_embedded

majorspark;937174 wrote:Ron Paul the proclaimed father of the tea party... 2012 campaign add addressing a social issue. Maybe you guys would just have Paul lay off the social issues too. Guess Paul is a fake too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_embedded

Perhaps it has been unclear to this point.

Nobody said that you can't have a position on social issues and be a part of the Tea Party. Hell, the point in not bringing up those issues at Tea Party rallies is because everyone DOES have positions on social issues, and making those issues part of being a member of the Tea Party ostracizes those who might otherwise agree.

Everyone ... Paul, Palin, Obama, Romney, etc. ... has views on social issues. They even ought to campaign on those platforms (as in the ad you posted). They ought NOT assert those positions as part of something that was never intended to include them.

The Tea Party was about restoring fiscal responsibility at the federal level. Doesn't matter what you believe about gay marriage, abortion, the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in school, etc. If you are in support of fiscal responsibility, you were, at one time, welcome to be a part of the Tea Party movement. Two people who disagree on all those issues I just mentioned were both welcome if they agreed that the federal government needed to return to a state of fiscal responsibility.

It's no longer that way, and THAT's the problem. By incorporating social issues as important to the cause of the Tea Party, you marginalize many who would otherwise stand WITH you on the issue of fiscal responsibility, but who disagree on the social issues.

It was intended to be a place where if you and I agreed on nothing else, we could still work toward a common goal, because that was the purpose.

The Tea Party was never intended to ostracize over social policy views. That CERTAINLY doesn't mean it was only intended for people who don't have opinions on social issues, though.