Where are all these videos of these "tea party" leaders at "tea party" rallies trumpeting social issues? Palin, Bachman, Rubio, or whoever else. Where are all these tea party rallies turned into anti abortion or gay marriage rallies led by these mainstream leaders? The "tea party" has been hijacked? Anytime you broaden a base you may have some lower level people on a different page. But nationally who in the tea party is trumpeting social issues at these events. Most of them agree with Ron Paul. And speak out about them at certain events. But you guys act like it is now the main drive of the tea party.

I am not seeing these social issues being focused on here. I mean seriously who is out their trumpeting these social issues via the tea party movement other than individuals and small groups.
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/Tea_Party_Movement_Platform.html

The problem is the Ronulans are upset Paul is not polling well. How do the Ronulans react? Attack social conservatives. Thats right social conservatives many of whom would vote for Ron Paul. Many that believe that same things on social issues Paul does. My self included. Yet Ronulans attack potential voters with disdain. Why? Well other conservatives have stolen the show in their eyes.

Paul has done well in coming out with a detailed economic plan. Hopefully in tomorrows debate he can get it up on the table like Cain did with his 9-9-9 plan. If he can hammer home the basic details of that plan he will get some attention and some that were turned off by his 9/11 comments may come back on board. As I said I would vote for him in the primary. Given he is a viable candidate. Ron Paul, other than some of his unrealistic and idealistic foreign policy stances, has not turned me totally off yet as a voter. The Ronulans are getting close. Looking like left wing attack dogs. But I am trying to stay above it and realize Ron Paul cannot be held responsible for every supporter.

Thje problem is that no matter how you try to stick with the fundamentals..( fiscal responsibility and the Constitiution)... people themselves are not 2 dimensional...and while we agree with the fundamentals, we ourselves have additional social concerns. It's tough to keep things pure.

As for Palin, it seems to me like she adopted the tea party, rather than vice versa.

I'm not upset about anything. I'm not even trying to tell you who to vote for. I just want to get the record straight on all of the candidates because if you all you do is watch or read Fox and CNN you would likely not even know Ron Paul is running or you wouldn't know that Romney was working on carbon tax legislation as governor of Massachusetts or that Cain flip flops on every issue depending on who he is talking too. I don't want people to believe the media that a guy like Paul isn't viable so you have to vote for a liberal like Romney or liars like Cain and Perry.

Cleveland Buck;937382 wrote:I'm not upset about anything. I'm not even trying to tell you who to vote for. I just want to get the record straight on all of the candidates because if you all you do is watch or read Fox and CNN you would likely not even know Ron Paul is running

Fox knows he is running. He got time. Paul got his message out.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1133006273001/media-ignoring-ron-paul/

Cleveland Buck;937382 wrote:you wouldn't know that Romney was working on carbon tax legislation as governor of Massachusetts

There is not a conservative I know that does not suspect or believe Romney is in the tank on this. Take conservative talk radio for instance. None carry his water and rail against him on this issue. If he is the candidate I may not vote for him and many other conservatives would join. A Romney nomination would take the air out of the balloon. Romney would be defeated by Obama.

Cleveland Buck;937382 wrote:Cain flip flops on every issue depending on who he is talking too.

Cain flip flops on every issue? Come on. You Ronulans amaze me with some of these stretches. Cain is not throwing his whole ideology to the curb at the direction of the next political wind. I have changed certain aspects of my politics when convinced otherwise. Call it a flip flop if you will.

Cleveland Buck;937382 wrote:I don't want people to believe the media that a guy like Paul isn't viable so you have to vote for a liberal like Romney or liars like Cain and Perry.

This is where you Ronulans turn me off. You say Cain and Perry are liars. How so? Just by your word? Like the tea party are racist rednecks. If Cain and Perry are liars I want to know. Kindly lay the proof out there for all to see.

I don't know if Perry is a liar. I know he isn't a good candidate though.

I Wear Pants;937411 wrote:I don't know if Perry is a liar. I know he isn't a good candidate though.

I'm waiting for someone to point out that his jobs record probably has more to do with energy being about the only industry to do well in the recession.

None of the candidates really impress me, but anyone other than Obama is exciting enough. IMO, Obama is a failure so "next batter up".

gut;937435 wrote:None of the candidates really impress me, but anyone other than Obama is exciting enough. IMO, Obama is a failure so "next batter up".

this

For all of you Paulists out there, get it through your heads...Ron Paul will NOT get the nomination and if he runs as an independent, you assist Obama in securing 4 more years of ineptitude and failure. I don't think this country can deal with that scenario.

Suffice it to say that all of the Repub candidates have their flaws including your "squeaky clean" Dr. Paul.

My advice to you is get behind the eventual Republican candidate and help us boot Obama to the curb.

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

they just let whoever into abortion rooms?

Glory Days;937461 wrote:they just let whoever into abortion rooms?

Ron Paul is a doctor. An obstetricion/gynecologist.

O-Trap;937263 wrote: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.

It's really difficult to eliminate social issues from one's ideology. Actually, it's pretty much impossible to be neutral on social issues, or any issues. Saying "No more talk about social issues" is really taking a stand and articulating a position that others might disagree with, the same as if someone said, "Bring prayer back in schools!" (which I have yet to hear at any Tea Party event).

Maybe influential Tea Partiers could articulate this better. Instead of arguing the end result of social issues decisions, they really should be concerned about who gets to decide them. The same federal government that's spending us off the cliff has also intrusively decided many social issues for all of us.

majorspark;937360 wrote:The problem is the Ronulans are upset Paul is not polling well. How do the Ronulans react? Attack social conservatives. Thats right social conservatives many of whom would vote for Ron Paul. Many that believe that same things on social issues Paul does. My self included. Yet Ronulans attack potential voters with disdain. Why? Well other conservatives have stolen the show in their eyes.

Paul has done well in coming out with a detailed economic plan. Hopefully in tomorrows debate he can get it up on the table like Cain did with his 9-9-9 plan. If he can hammer home the basic details of that plan he will get some attention and some that were turned off by his 9/11 comments may come back on board. As I said I would vote for him in the primary. Given he is a viable candidate. Ron Paul, other than some of his unrealistic and idealistic foreign policy stances, has not turned me totally off yet as a voter. The Ronulans are getting close. Looking like left wing attack dogs. But I am trying to stay above it and realize Ron Paul cannot be held responsible for every supporter.

Well said. I've been thinking that for awhile, and I'm not sure I can stay above it either. For me, too many of Paul's followers have been too rabidly "Paul or bust" for too long.

gut;937435 wrote:I'm waiting for someone to point out that his jobs record probably has more to do with energy being about the only industry to do well in the recession.

None of the candidates really impress me, but anyone other than Obama is exciting enough. IMO, Obama is a failure so "next batter up".

While that's a fair assessment as I don't think Obama has done well either I still am not on the "anyone but" train. Simply because I feel like returning to the previous 8 years before Obama (Republican president) is just as unappealing as another 4 years of Obama. Both sides are fucking abhorrent when it comes to spending so in my mind it comes down to which foreign policy and social issues you align with most.

Foreign policy it's important for me to see a massive reduction in military spending and military activity abroad. (Paul would win this one if he were the candidate)
Social issues I tend to be on the more liberal side so Obama would be closer in that one (though Paul allowing states to decide is more appealing than most GOP candidates "we're a conservative/Christian/whatever nation so as such our values will be forced upon you by law" attitudes).

"Simply because I feel like returning to the previous 8 years before Obama (Republican president) is just as unappealing as another 4 years of Obama."

I'd give my right nut to live in the '00-'08 economy compared to the disaster that has happened since '08.

Yeah, it really sucked, me buying cars, a house, stable jobs compared to having to move 10,000 miles away and being embarrassed to even correct people that ask if I'm Australian.

Obama is a disaster. I'm voting for Romney, will support Cain if he gets the GOP nod and will hold my nose and vote for Perry in that event, but no freaking way will I support Obama by not voting.

I plan on voting, and I plan on expressing my dissatisfaction with the Obama administration in every single outlet. He's been a complete nightmare.

Manhattan, you think that the 00-08 economy was a result of good policy by the Republicans and not that of being on the good side of the internet boom and a housing bubble? Don't read this as saying Bush caused all the problems, because he clearly didn't. But do you honestly think we'd be in a significantly better economic situation right now with Mccain at the helm? What would he have done that would have made that difference? I don't see it.

"Manhattan, you think that the 00-08 economy was a result of good policy by the Republicans and not that of being on the good side of the internet boom and a housing bubble?"

The good side of the internet boom? Are you $^%&ing kidding me? The internet boom busted in second quarter '00, who was President then?

At any rate, I don't care. Obama has proven himself to be an emperor without clothing, an empty suit, an imbecile. What term do you like? I'm not voting for him and I'd vote for a labrador retriever just to get him out.

Obama is the worst decision this country has made in my lifetime.

I meant the actual economic coming of age of the internet, not the "holy shit look at this new thing" period.

I Wear Pants;937522 wrote:Social issues I tend to be on the more liberal side so Obama would be closer in that one (though Paul allowing states to decide is more appealing than most GOP candidates "we're a conservative/Christian/whatever nation so as such our values will be forced upon you by law" attitudes).

Eeeeasy there. You might want to give an example or two (if you can) to back up statements like that.

While you're railing against "values forced upon us by law", maybe you could start with the Supreme Court in 1973 dictating to all 50 states what the uniform values of abortion will be.

Manhattan Buckeye;937542 wrote:Obama is the worst decision this country has made in my lifetime.

Jimmy Carter might want some of that. I just watched a program on Carter the other night, and they played a good part of the "malaise" speech, and I found myself wondering how in the world an American president actually gave a speech like that.

jhay78;937505 wrote:It's really difficult to eliminate social issues from one's ideology. Actually, it's pretty much impossible to be neutral on social issues, or any issues. Saying "No more talk about social issues" is really taking a stand and articulating a position that others might disagree with, the same as if someone said, "Bring prayer back in schools!" (which I have yet to hear at any Tea Party event).

I haven't heard it either. I was merely using it as an example of a social issue.

And again, I'm not suggesting that social policy be disregarded by those IN the Tea Party. I'm simply saying that's not what it was originally supposed to include.

If you and I (this is hypothetical) disagreed on all the social issues, but agreed that our central government needed to return to a fiscal responsibility we haven't seen since before my lifetime, we should be able to gather in support of such, wouldn't you agree? By adding tenets to the Tea Party mission, it becomes a more exclusionary "all-or-nothing" position. Those who are fiscal conservatives, but who disagree with the Republican Party on social issues are made to feel unwelcome. Whether that is by accident or design may be up for debate, but even if by accident, it still results in fewer people standing behind the mission.

jhay78;937505 wrote: Maybe influential Tea Partiers could articulate this better. Instead of arguing the end result of social issues decisions, they really should be concerned about who gets to decide them. The same federal government that's spending us off the cliff has also intrusively decided many social issues for all of us.

See? You and I even seem to agree here, but even if these views on social policy were articulated by Tea Party rally speakers, it might ostracize others who disagree, and that only hurts the cause for economic reform at the federal level, because by adding social policy views ... even Libertarian ones ... to the Tea Party mission, yo include fewer people standing behind the main purpose.

jhay78;937505 wrote:Well said. I've been thinking that for awhile, and I'm not sure I can stay above it either. For me, too many of Paul's followers have been too rabidly "Paul or bust" for too long.

I mean this with all genuineness: If I believed another candidate (of any party affiliation) was going to turn the country in the right direction, I'd go with them instead. It's not "Paul" that I support. It's the kind of America he supports that I support. If I have a panel of candidates who I think will continue the problem (to varying degrees) and then one who I think will actually fight to turn the country in the right direction holistically, I'm going to vote for the latter. Whether it's Mandingo or George Castanza (shrinkage and all) bending over the country, it's still getting bent over. I'm not going to vote for Costanza if there is a candidate I don't think is going to bend us over at all.

The whole "Paul-or-bust" mantra is not unlike the "Republican-nominee-or-bust" mantra that seems to take place every general election, typically stemming from the view that, "Well, it'll be better than Clinton/Gore/Obama/etc."

I'm not okay with voting for the candidate who is going to rape me less as long as there is a candidate who I don't believe is going to rape me at all, no matter who else may or may not vote for him.

I Wear Pants;937522 wrote:

Foreign policy it's important for me to see a massive reduction in military spending and military activity abroad. (Paul would win this one if he were the candidate)
Social issues I tend to be on the more liberal side so Obama would be closer in that one (though Paul allowing states to decide is more appealing than most GOP candidates "we're a conservative/Christian/whatever nation so as such our values will be forced upon you by law" attitudes).

Any proof of this on how any given law recently has forced conservative/Christian values on the whole nation by a GOP President?

OBAMA: 'WE ARE ON THEIR SIDE'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-occupy-wall-street-we-are-their-side_598251.html

majorspark;937464 wrote:Ron Paul is a doctor. An obstetricion/gynecologist.

Strictly obstetrician...not a gyno.

jmog;937755 wrote:Any proof of this on how any given law recently has forced conservative/Christian values on the whole nation by a GOP President?

This is the big, bad boogeyman that leftists (and the media) trot out for just about every election cycle -- and the "rationale" behind all the efforts to destroy candidates who hold fairly conservative views on certain issues, like abortion and gay rights (those are the two hot buttons for the left).

It's nonsense.

If we continue down the same fiscal path we're on, regardless of party, it won't matter one bit whether abortion is legal or states or the federal government should tackle gay marriage. We'll all be scratching to survive and will have far more personal issues to deal with (housing, fuel, food, heat) and possibly even a federal government espousing military rule if things go even further South.

QuakerOats;937864 wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-occupy-wall-street-we-are-their-side_598251.html

Well if it ever comes to blows with these folks I like our chances.

jhay78;937678 wrote:Eeeeasy there. You might want to give an example or two (if you can) to back up statements like that.

While you're railing against "values forced upon us by law", maybe you could start with the Supreme Court in 1973 dictating to all 50 states what the uniform values of abortion will be.



Jimmy Carter might want some of that. I just watched a program on Carter the other night, and they played a good part of the "malaise" speech, and I found myself wondering how in the world an American president actually gave a speech like that.

Wasn't aware that anyone is forced to get an abortion.

jmog;937755 wrote:Any proof of this on how any given law recently has forced conservative/Christian values on the whole nation by a GOP President?

Gay marriage. They all speak a lot on the issue and how it will bring down the American family, etc, etc.