Tea Parties Looking Not Looking To Follow

[California Girl]

California Girl, please address the point and quit acting like a loon.

Unless you are a moderator, Joke, fuck off telling me what I can and can not post, you dumbass leftie.

 

[Foxfyre]

At our events, a handful (five or six at the most) would bring a sign that we thought disrespectful or inflammatory enough that we asked them to put them away. And all did. Almost ALL the hate signs you see at Tea Parties, I honestly believe are leftist plants there to discredit the Tea Party. And they do their damndest to make sure they get in front of the cameras with those signs every opportunity they have.

There is also evidence that a great many others that you find on the internet are photoshopped and were never ever at a Tea Party.

And those who are repeatedly posting those hate signs on threads like this, will never EVER respond when it is shown to them that their side has done far worse than anything done at any Tea Party event.

And here's another problem too. People who want to deny that the tea parties they apart of do not have a problem of radicals trying to gain entry. There is no sides in this. You want to use arguments that because A is worse than B, that B is not that bad. I can only imagine if someone used that sort of argument for holocausts.

But hey, be my guest, keep it up. So when the radicals have controlled the tea parties just like the religious right hijacked the GOP, the only ones you'll have to blame are yourselves.

You accuse CG of using ad hominem arguments and then you presume to tell me what argument I want to use? You don't see the hypocrisy in that?

There ARE sides in this. One side mostly defends Obama, the Democrats, and big government because they endorse at least some socialist concepts; and they trust government to handle problems more than they trust the people to handle them themselves. Such people are not usually comfortable with the Tea Party movement and/or they are control freaks or some ilk as that; and some do their damndest to discredit the Tea Parties in every way they can.

Sort of like you just did.

The OTHER side is the Tea Partiers themselves. They stick to a simple emphasis as has already been outlined here by others. They aren't dragging controversial side issues into it, and resent those who attempt to do so. They are not radical looney extremists despite the Left's honest or dishonest attempts to paint them with that brush.

Radicals have forever tried to infliltrate every political or social movement that has ever existed. That includes all movements you probably hold up as noble and worthy causes or efforts too. And if you are intellectually honest, you'll acknowledge that and admit that it is not a valid reason to condemn the Tea Party spirit or initiatives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

California Girl, please address the point and quit acting like a loon.

Unless you are a moderator, Joke, fuck off telling me what I can and can not post, you dumbass leftie.

Come on, big ass, quit huffing and answer the questions. Address the point and stop being the town idiot.

 

[Modbert]

You accuse CG of using ad hominem arguments and then you presume to tell me what argument I want to use? You don't see the hypocrisy in that?

There ARE sides in this. One side mostly defends Obama, the Democrats, and big government because they endorse at least some socialist concepts; and they trust government to handle problems more than they trust the people to handle them themselves. Such people are not usually comfortable with the Tea Party movement and/or they are control freaks or some ilk as that, they do their damndest to discredit the Tea Parties in every way they can.

Sort of like you just did.

The OTHER side is the Tea Partiers themselves. They stick to a simple emphasis as has already been outlined here by others. They aren't dragging controversial side issues into it, and resent those who attempt to do so. They are not radical looney extremists despite the Left's honest or dishonest attempts to paint them with that brush.

Radicals have forever tried to infliltrate every political or social movement that has ever existed. That includes all movements you probably hold up as noble and worthy causes or efforts too. And if you are intellectually honest, you'll acknowledge that and admit that it is not a valid reason to condemn the Tea Party spirit or initiatives.

I didn't assume anything, I highlighted the argument you made.

And then you go and commit a Ad Hominem argument yourself while trying to cause divisions.

You just said anyone who supports Obama for the most part is a Big Government loving Socialist. Then you call them control freaks.

Do you even bother to listen to yourself before you go and commit Ad Hominem attack after Ad Hominem attack? Your entire post is attacking one side and proping up another to Sainthood.

I'll condemn the Tea Parties who allow those sort of radicals to not only be present at their rallies but to give them a voice in their movement that is growing larger by the day.

And there are plenty in the Tea Party who are for Big Government, just their definition of Big Government should be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, foxfyre, you said your opponets "endorse at least some socialist concepts". I don't think you can prove that, even if you think assertion is proof, as apparently GG does.

Go for it. If you simply ad hom or ignore the question, the logical conclusion is that you can't back up your statement any more than CG can.

 

[Annie]

...

And there are plenty in the Tea Party who are for Big Government, just their definition of Big Government should be.

Really? Who would that be, other than named GOP candidates that have been trying to lead instead of follow?

 

[Modbert]

Really? Who would that be, other than named GOP candidates that have been trying to lead instead of follow?

Joseph Farah for starters. And of course you have the other people who are other forms of Big Government, but not the so called "Liberal version."

Let me ask you something now Annie. Why is it the tea parties in Mass supported Scott Brown who was somewhat Liberal and who exactly you and the other tea party should be against instead of Joseph L. Kennedy? Joseph was a real Conservative and everything the tea party wants in the candidate. He also wasn't related to the Kennedys if you were wondering.

The obvious answer being that they sold out their principles for a victory, but why don't you tell me what you think.

Also, those GOP candidates are being allowed to lead the movement as far as I can see.

 

[Foxfyre]

You accuse CG of using ad hominem arguments and then you presume to tell me what argument I want to use? You don't see the hypocrisy in that?

There ARE sides in this. One side mostly defends Obama, the Democrats, and big government because they endorse at least some socialist concepts; and they trust government to handle problems more than they trust the people to handle them themselves. Such people are not usually comfortable with the Tea Party movement and/or they are control freaks or some ilk as that, they do their damndest to discredit the Tea Parties in every way they can.

Sort of like you just did.

The OTHER side is the Tea Partiers themselves. They stick to a simple emphasis as has already been outlined here by others. They aren't dragging controversial side issues into it, and resent those who attempt to do so. They are not radical looney extremists despite the Left's honest or dishonest attempts to paint them with that brush.

Radicals have forever tried to infliltrate every political or social movement that has ever existed. That includes all movements you probably hold up as noble and worthy causes or efforts too. And if you are intellectually honest, you'll acknowledge that and admit that it is not a valid reason to condemn the Tea Party spirit or initiatives.

I didn't assume anything, I highlighted the argument you made.

But Sweetie, you did assume since you drew a conclusion that I meant something that I know I didn't mean or say.

And then you go and commit a Ad Hominem argument yourself while trying to cause divisions.

I can assure you I know what an ad hominem argument is and I did not use one. You did.

You just said anyone who supports Obama for the most part is a Big Government loving Socialist. Then you call them control freaks.

No, I did not say that. Maybe if you read more carefully, you would see that. Have you ever considered taking a crash course in logical fallacies?

Do you even bother to listen to yourself before you go and commit Ad Hominem attack after Ad Hominem attack? Your entire post is attacking one side and proping up another to Sainthood.

No dear. Again I know what ad hominem is, and I am not guilty of that in my post to you. Nor did I attack you in any form.

I'll condemn the Tea Parties who allow those sort of radicals to not only be present at their rallies but to give them a voice in their movement that is growing larger by the day.

That's your prerogative. At least that's one statement you made that is not ad hominem or other logical fallacy.

And there are plenty in the Tea Party who are for Big Government, just their definition of Big Government should be.

I have no way of knowing whether that is an accurate statement or not. Perhaps you could point me to some evidence for that? But even if there are, such people are not presenting that concept within the emphasis of the Tea Party movement itself.

 

[Annie]

Really? Who would that be, other than named GOP candidates that have been trying to lead instead of follow?

Joseph Farah for starters. And of course you have the other people who are other forms of Big Government, but not the so called "Liberal version."

Let me ask you something now Annie. Why is it the tea parties in Mass supported Scott Brown who was somewhat Liberal and who exactly you and the other tea party should be against instead of Joseph L. Kennedy? Joseph was a real Conservative and everything the tea party wants in the candidate. He also wasn't related to the Kennedys if you were wondering.

The obvious answer being that they sold out their principles for a victory, but why don't you tell me what you think.

Also, those GOP candidates are being allowed to lead the movement as far as I can see.

I'll tell you that I think you spend way too much time telling me and others you disagree with, what we SHOULD THINK. You consider yourself brilliant, perhaps you are. That doesn't mean that your ideas fit all, anymore than your shirts.

What you and many others, including the MSM so far are failing to see is that these tea parties are much more than disgruntled GOP people, if it were, Scott would have lost. Nope, there are more conservatives, though not necessarily those that have driven the GOP so far right on social issues. There are many libertarians, many more independents, and yes, quite a few moderate Democrats. The make-up alone precludes allowing the leadership of a Tancredo or Palin for that matter. Both are way too far right on social issues than the main tea party person. You like to focus, as does the MSM on the fringe, well good luck with that, for it's all about the numbers, not the propaganda you throw.

If you notice, most of us that are conservative, but socially moderate/liberal don't spend a lot of time arguing who you should pick. We don't run polls on whether Hillary should challenge Obama in 2012. We don't care who runs as Democrat or any alternative you like-since you aren't Democrat.

As for Joseph Farah, I disagree with the whole birther nonsense, as do most tea party people and even most GOP!

 

[Modbert]

Foxfyre, I'm going to ask you to respond to a post without doing what you did in the previous one. If only because it makes it that more difficult to respond to in the future if you split up every answer.

I literally highlighted a argument that you made, that the people who have those sort of signs are plants. I was able to draw a conclusion for that statement that is logical.

You want to attack Obama, the Democrats, and just about every other person on the Left as Big Government Socialists, be my guest. However, you seem to forgotten to include the Republicans in the Big Government crowd.

You seem to have no idea what a ad hominem is if you don't think you committed in the post previously before the last one.

You seem to not want to hear what I have to say, that the tea parties is at a crossroads and is allowing the larger powers at be to overtake what was suppose to be a grassroots movement. I'll ask you that you answer the question I just previously posed to Annie.

Consider my message to be the same thing that Barry Goldwater (a true Conservative for the most part) who warned the GOP over forty years ago what would happen if they did not change. The GOP at the time was a crossroads. They did not listen to Goldwater, and what he said came true.

 

[MIPS]

I'll condemn the Tea Parties who allow those sort of radicals to not only be present at their rallies but to give them a voice in their movement that is growing larger by the day.

What exactly would you propose Tea Party Organizers do? forcibly throw people out that they disagree with? that would be antithetical to one of the major principles that is driving the tea party movement (individual liberty).

 

[Modbert]

I'll tell you that I think you spend way too much time telling me and others you disagree with, what we SHOULD THINK. You consider yourself brilliant, perhaps you are. That doesn't mean that your ideas fit all, anymore than your shirts.

What you and many others, including the MSM so far are failing to see is that these tea parties are much more than disgruntled GOP people, if it were, Scott would have lost. Nope, there are more conservatives, though not necessarily those that have driven the GOP so far right on social issues. There are many libertarians, many more independents, and yes, quite a few moderate Democrats. The make-up alone precludes allowing the leadership of a Tancredo or Palin for that matter. Both are way too far right on social issues than the main tea party person. You like to focus, as does the MSM on the fringe, well good luck with that, for it's all about the numbers, not the propaganda you throw.

If you notice, most of us that are conservative, but socially moderate/liberal don't spend a lot of time arguing who you should pick. We don't run polls on whether Hillary should challenge Obama in 2012. We don't care who runs as Democrat or any alternative you like-since you aren't Democrat.

As for Joseph Farah, I disagree with the whole birther nonsense, as do most tea party people and even most GOP!

I asked you what you think, and you tell me I'm telling you too much what to think.

2.) You never answered my question, why did the Tea Parties in Mass not support the true Conservative instead supporting what some would call a Liberal in more red states.

3.) I don't argue who you guys should pick. Though if you were to ask me, I hope you guys pick Palin.

4.) You like to think that most tea party people and GOP disagree with the "birther nonsense" and I wish that were true.

From the mouth of the Birther Movement itself:

New poll shows birthers growing

58 percent of Republican respondents when asked if Barack Obama was born in the USA answered "no" or "not sure."

 

[Modbert]

What exactly would you propose Tea Party Organizers do? forcibly throw people out that they disagree with? that would be antithetical to one of the major principles that is driving the tea party movement (individual liberty).

Individual Liberty also involves something called responsibility. They don't need to throw out anyone, just get rid of signs and speakers that promote racism or something that is totally against the tea party movement. The tea party organizers have a responsibility to every honest and hard working American there to make sure that the radicals do not represent the entire movement.

 

[MIPS]

What exactly would you propose Tea Party Organizers do? forcibly throw people out that they disagree with? that would be antithetical to one of the major principles that is driving the tea party movement (individual liberty).

Individual Liberty also involves something called responsibility. They don't need to throw out anyone, just get rid of signs and speakers that promote racism or something that is totally against the tea party movement. The tea party organizers have a responsibility to every honest and hard working American there to make sure that the radicals do not represent the entire movement.

First off radicals do not represent the "entire movement" in fact they represent a very tiny fraction of it from everything that I've seen, that does not however mean that those "radicals" do not have a right to voice their views. Secondly apparently you are not aware the tea party organizations are localized therefor a tea party group having a gathering in say Jacksonville, Florida is likely to have very different speakers and very different atmosphere than say a tea party gathering in say Seattle, Washington. The commonality between the organizations (i.e. what makes it a "movement") are the unifying principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty, now I don't know what problem people like you have with those principles and honestly I don't really care, however the "arguments" you presented here in this thread seem to boil down to throwing people out and telling other people what they can and cannot do at the their own events which as I said is antithetical to one of the major principles being advocated.

I realize that some people do not understand why individual liberty and the original intent of the constitution are so important to people like me and those that are involved in the tea party movement, perhaps they never will, however that will not stop the movement from advancing forward nor will it in any way reduce the very real and very significant impact it's having and going to continue to have on politics in this great country of ours. You and your ilk either need to learn to accept it or you can just continue to be miserable about it, I think it's safe to say the the vast majority of those supporting the tea party movement really don't care which option you choose.

 

[Annie]

I'll tell you that I think you spend way too much time telling me and others you disagree with, what we SHOULD THINK. You consider yourself brilliant, perhaps you are. That doesn't mean that your ideas fit all, anymore than your shirts.

What you and many others, including the MSM so far are failing to see is that these tea parties are much more than disgruntled GOP people, if it were, Scott would have lost. Nope, there are more conservatives, though not necessarily those that have driven the GOP so far right on social issues. There are many libertarians, many more independents, and yes, quite a few moderate Democrats. The make-up alone precludes allowing the leadership of a Tancredo or Palin for that matter. Both are way too far right on social issues than the main tea party person. You like to focus, as does the MSM on the fringe, well good luck with that, for it's all about the numbers, not the propaganda you throw.

If you notice, most of us that are conservative, but socially moderate/liberal don't spend a lot of time arguing who you should pick. We don't run polls on whether Hillary should challenge Obama in 2012. We don't care who runs as Democrat or any alternative you like-since you aren't Democrat.

As for Joseph Farah, I disagree with the whole birther nonsense, as do most tea party people and even most GOP!

I asked you what you think, and you tell me I'm telling you too much what to think.

2.) You never answered my question, why did the Tea Parties in Mass not support the true Conservative instead supporting what some would call a Liberal in more red states.

3.) I don't argue who you guys should pick. Though if you were to ask me, I hope you guys pick Palin.

4.) You like to think that most tea party people and GOP disagree with the "birther nonsense" and I wish that were true.

From the mouth of the Birther Movement itself:

New poll shows birthers growing

58 percent of Republican respondents when asked if Barack Obama was born in the USA answered "no" or "not sure."

Once again, tea partiers are not necessarily Republicans, thus not the 'mouth' of anything other than their own opinions.

We disagree with whom the conservative in MA is. Scott would have had my vote. He's in the main financially conservative/socially liberal. I deal with who is closest to my thinking. I wish I had a clone in DC or Springfield for that matter, never going to happen, nor should it really.

I recognized in this case, you asked my opinion, while framing the questions to elicit the responses you wanted, trying to force my accepting your faulty premises.

Again, it's not conducive to discussion, but that's not your real purpose, got it.

 

[Annie]

What exactly would you propose Tea Party Organizers do? forcibly throw people out that they disagree with? that would be antithetical to one of the major principles that is driving the tea party movement (individual liberty).

Individual Liberty also involves something called responsibility. They don't need to throw out anyone, just get rid of signs and speakers that promote racism or something that is totally against the tea party movement. The tea party organizers have a responsibility to every honest and hard working American there to make sure that the radicals do not represent the entire movement.

So yo would advocate a party forcibly removing hand made signs. Oh, we don't have the SEIU or Moveon to print them up and wouldn't want the groups that might volunteer to provide, doing so. Grassroots are grassroots, it may be messy but all are welcome. Doesn't mean they get a microphone, other than those of course provided by the MSM that want to discredit. Luckily, it's not the MSM that is the audience needed, nor even the conduit required any longer.

 

[Intense]

What exactly would you propose Tea Party Organizers do? forcibly throw people out that they disagree with? that would be antithetical to one of the major principles that is driving the tea party movement (individual liberty).

Individual Liberty also involves something called responsibility. They don't need to throw out anyone, just get rid of signs and speakers that promote racism or something that is totally against the tea party movement. The tea party organizers have a responsibility to every honest and hard working American there to make sure that the radicals do not represent the entire movement.

So yo would advocate a party forcibly removing hand made signs. Oh, we don't have the SEIU or Moveon to print them up and wouldn't want the groups that might volunteer to provide, doing so. Grassroots are grassroots, it may be messy but all are welcome. Doesn't mean they get a microphone, other than those of course provided by the MSM that want to discredit. Luckily, it's not the MSM that is the audience needed, nor even the conduit required any longer.

Why can't They just let things be? Alway's with censorship and control. Image over substance. Will they ever get it?

 

[Modbert]

So yo would advocate a party forcibly removing hand made signs. Oh, we don't have the SEIU or Moveon to print them up and wouldn't want the groups that might volunteer to provide, doing so. Grassroots are grassroots, it may be messy but all are welcome. Doesn't mean they get a microphone, other than those of course provided by the MSM that want to discredit. Luckily, it's not the MSM that is the audience needed, nor even the conduit required any longer.

Yes. I am all for freedom of speech. However, I would not allow any signs that promote racism or anything else that goes against the movement in such a extreme way.

You can't have it both ways.

You either welcome everyone, which includes the radicals or you draw the line on what to allow.

This is not the same thing as say, allowing someone in the United States. This is a question of who you want to represent your movement to the rest of the world. If I were a Democrat, I would not signs at the DNC convention full of racism, sexism, and overall hatred for America.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know, when you have enough exceptions to the rule, they become the rule.

I wonder why Sarah Palin didn't support the Tea Partier Debra Medina, for Texas governor?

...or why for that matter she isn't even supporting the real conservative in that race.

she is. you didn't see the speech

You mean the speech where she spends much of the first part praising the pro-choicer Scott Brown and later praises Bart Stupak for being pro-life?

No, she didn't even mention Texas in her speech did she?

 

[Annie]

So yo would advocate a party forcibly removing hand made signs. Oh, we don't have the SEIU or Moveon to print them up and wouldn't want the groups that might volunteer to provide, doing so. Grassroots are grassroots, it may be messy but all are welcome. Doesn't mean they get a microphone, other than those of course provided by the MSM that want to discredit. Luckily, it's not the MSM that is the audience needed, nor even the conduit required any longer.

Yes. I am all for freedom of speech. However, I would not allow any signs that promote racism or anything else that goes against the movement.

You can't have it both ways.No, YOU can't have it both ways. Saying your freedom of speech, but denying that you disagree with. Doesn't work that way, not against the racists, not against the communists or the flag burners.

You either welcome everyone, which includes the radicals or you draw the line on what to allow.

This is not the same thing as say, allowing someone in the United States. This is a question of who you want to represent your movement to the rest of the world. If I were a Democrat, I would not signs at the DNC convention full of racism, sexism, and overall hatred for America.

You've made it clear, only signs you agree with. Got it.