Tea Parties Looking Not Looking To Follow

[MIPS]

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

Honestly I live in a district that is heavily democratic and as such I have met more Democrats (i.e. registered Democrats that tend to vote for Democrats) than I have registered Republicans at the tea party gatherings that I've been to. Those Democrats that I have talked to at any length seem have on concern in common, they are upset that their party has been hijacked by left wing progressive radicals, which oddly enough reminds me of the Republicans that were upset during the Bush years that their party had been hijacked by neocons and right wing religious radicals. It seems to me by far the biggest group at the gatherings were independents that vote based on the candidate and his/her views regardless of party.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Due to the fact that she and many other Democrats had supported the entry into Iraq, and she probably doesn't believe the truther stuff.

And defunding the war would of been political suicide, which she knew.

yeah i think Pelosi voted for the Iraq war.

then lied and told Amerians if elected first job was to stop the war.

The war is effectively over. If 90,000 troops are coming home this summer, that's going like real good going into the election.

 

[Annie]

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?

He's not part of the tea party folks. He's a left wing censor. Got the folks on the right that want anyone to be handed a microphone, got the folks on the left that want only words they agree with, would have only one party if they could. Fascists to the left, Facists to the right....

 

[Modbert]

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

No. Not only signs that I agree with.

That's like saying you're going to nominate someone for your party that goes against the entire ideology. The tea parties are not going to nominate a Socialist. Wouldn't make sense.

However Annie, you cannot have it both ways.

Either you are for radicals that believe the Government was behind 9/11, behind OKC, behind the recent stock market crash, believe Obama is a KGB spy who was born in Kenya and is out to destroy the United States to not only have a voice in your movement but be allowed to say these things as if they represent you or you're not.

However, you cannot say the movement is not full of these people if you're going to allow them in and they take you up on the offer. Simple as that.

 

[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.

and Sarah Palin made clear that she is currently a Republican. I think she voices many of the concerns of tea party folks, but she has yet to become a true believer in where party alone doesn't matter.

Well then her original SarahPAC pitch, where she vowed to support conservatives regardless of party, was a lie.

and btw, Kay Bailey Hutchison is the real conservative in the Texas governor's race.

 

[Modbert]

He's not part of the tea party folks. He's a left wing censor. Got the folks on the right that want anyone to be handed a microphone, got the folks on the left that want only words they agree with, would have only one party if they could. Fascists to the left, Facists to the right....

And here is where your dishonesty comes out.

I would not want people representing my movement that offered up radical ideas that go against it. I'm not a left wing censor either. I don't want one party either.

If people want to disagree ideologically with beliefs in the movement, that's one thing. However, promoting radical beliefs is another.

But hey, keep up with that doublethink of yours.

 

[Annie]

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.

and Sarah Palin made clear that she is currently a Republican. I think she voices many of the concerns of tea party folks, but she has yet to become a true believer in where party alone doesn't matter.

Well then her original SarahPAC pitch, where she vowed to support conservatives regardless of party, was a lie.

and btw, Kay Bailey Hutchison is the real conservative in the Texas governor's race.

I don't think about Palin much, though it's hard with all the threads started by you all. Would I vote for her, no. Not now, can't see anything to make me change my mind. She seems to be the inverse of you and others here.

 

[Annie]

He's not part of the tea party folks. He's a left wing censor. Got the folks on the right that want anyone to be handed a microphone, got the folks on the left that want only words they agree with, would have only one party if they could. Fascists to the left, Facists to the right....

And here is where your dishonesty comes out.

I would not want people representing my movement that offered up radical ideas that go against it. I'm not a left wing censor either. I don't want one party either.

If people want to disagree ideologically with beliefs in the movement, that's one thing. However, promoting radical beliefs is another.

But hey, keep up with that doublethink of yours.

And this is where your dishonesty comes out, in your posts. You would take away others rights to fit what you think is 'correct.' Sorry, i disagree with those that in poor taste marched carrying death to Bush and Bushitler signs. Take them away? Nope. Speak out about bad taste? Sure. Same with those like the Obama morphing into Satan, bad taste. Have I said so to the poster that has it in sig? Yep. Remove it? Nah, don't think that should be done.

 

[MIPS]

Either you are for radicals that believe the Government was behind 9/11, behind OKC, behind the recent stock market crash, believe Obama is a KGB spy who was born in Kenya and is out to destroy the United States to not only have a voice in your movement but be allowed to say these things as if they represent you or you're not.

ROFLMAO! so what you're saying is "guilt by proximity"? Apparently you don't understand that one can actually be in the same room with and listening to the same speaker as say a progressive lunatic and not agree with him and yet still respect his right to be there and express his views in a socially acceptable manner.

The tea party movement has made it pretty clear as to what their unifying principles are and only those are too vapid to understand them or outright refuse to look and would rather play "definer" games know what they are, much to your chagrin I'm sure.

 

[Modbert]

And were is where your dishonesty comes out, in your posts. You would take away others rights to fit what you think is 'correct.' Sorry, i disagree with those that in poor taste marched carrying death to Bush and Bushitler signs. Take them away? Nope. Speak out about bad taste? Sure. Same with those like the Obama morphing into Satan, bad taste. Have I said so to the poster that has it in sig? Yep. Remove it? Nah, don't think that should be done.

Take away their right to believe what they want? Nope, never said that.

I simply said signs that promote radical beliefs that go against the movement should not be allowed if the movement doesn't want such ideas to be promoted.

You disagree with the signs carrying death to Bush but you would keep them. However, in the same breath, you seem to forget those who place the entire movement to such people.

 

[Modbert]

ROFLMAO! so what you're saying is "guilt by proximity"? Apparently you don't understand that one can actually be in the same room with and listening to the same speaker as say a progressive lunatic and not agree with him and yet still respect his right to be there and express his views in a socially acceptable manner.

The tea party movement has made it pretty clear as to what their unifying principles are and only those are too vapid to understand them or outright refuse to look and would rather play "definer" games know what they are, much to your chagrin I'm sure.

Guilt by proximity? No.

However, if you give them a voice and enable them to go on about their radical ideas to applause, what would that say of the audience?

Apparently you don't understand that paying people to speak at your event to sprout off what you believe to represent your movement has a effect.

The Tea party Movement has made it pretty clear as to what their unifying principles are? Really? Did they have a poll and I missed it? All these sects of the tea party movement are still debating as to what their principles are and should be.

Sure, they have a few phrases that are more genetic than anything specific, but that's not exactly the meat of the movement.

 

[Annie]

...

You disagree with the signs carrying death to Bush but you would keep them. However, in the same breath, you seem to forget those who place the entire movement to such people.

huh?

 

[Modbert]

huh?

Let me rephrase that.

You say no, don't get rid of the signs. However, you seem to forget people, perhaps even yourself at some point, who say that represents a large majority of say Democrats.

What I'm trying to get across is that if people believe certain things ideologically that are different, that's alright. For example, the Democratic Party is full of people who believe in the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice idea. Heck, the POTUS is not for Gay Marriage.

But what I'm saying is that it is irresponsible of organizers to allow the radicals of the tea party movement or any movement for that matter to hijack the movement and represent it to their beliefs. It is irresponsible to all the honest and hard working Americans who are not accurately seen due to this.

Am I saying take down any sign that disagrees with the movement? No

Am I saying ask the person to take down the sign that compares Health Care Reform to the Holocaust? Yes.

Am I saying ask the person that says that the Government was behind 9/11 to respectfully take down their sign? Yes.

Yes, they are hand drawn signs. However, they hold no value except to promote hate or some other negative aspect. They do not offer any real debate or discussion.

You made your post a couple posts back before I finished my edit of any sign that is extremely radical. You wouldn't want me calling you a birther would you? Except what happens if you attend a conference where they have a birther speaking to applause after his comments.

What am I suppose to think of you for attending that conference? You say you're not a birther, yet there you are.

See the point I'm trying to get across?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

No it is not logical to assume what I want unless I say what I want. And without knowing WHY I think the people holding those signs are likely plants, you can draw no conclusion about why I would think that. Another logical fallacy on your part.

I heard what you have had to say about the Tea Parties and offered no conclusion about you whatsoever other than that is what you said about the Tea Parties. The fact that I believe you are wrong in your opinion is based on my own direct, hands on, up close and personal experience with the Tea Parties. You have provided no logical basis for why anything I have said is incorrect.

Finally I used no ad hominem reference re you or your opinion. You demonstrated that you do not know what an ad hominem argument is when you accuse me of arguing ad hominem when I have not done so.

As to what question you put to Annie, I'll go back and see what that is.

Edit: Okay I went back and if there is a coherent questions asked of Annie, I missed it. Could you repeat it please?

 

[Annie]

huh?

Let me rephrase that.

You say no, don't get rid of the signs. However, you seem to forget people, perhaps even yourself at some point, who say that represents a large majority of say Democrats.

What I'm trying to get across is that if people believe certain things ideologically that are different, that's alright. For example, the Democratic Party is full of people who believe in the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice idea. Heck, the POTUS is not for Gay Marriage.

But what I'm saying is that it is irresponsible of organizers to allow the radicals of the tea party movement or any movement for that matter to hijack the movement and represent it to their beliefs. It is irresponsible to all the honest and hard working Americans who are not accurately seen due to this.

Am I saying take down any sign that disagrees with the movement? No

Am I saying ask the person to take down the sign that compares Health Care Reform to the Holocaust? Yes.

Am I saying ask the person that says that the Government was behind 9/11 to respectfully take down their sign? Yes.

Yes, they are hand drawn signs. However, they hold no value except to promote hate or some other negative aspect. They do not offer any real debate or discussion.

You made your post a couple posts back before I finished my edit of any sign that is extremely radical. You wouldn't want me calling you a birther would you? Except what happens if you attend a conference where they have a birther speaking to applause after his comments.

What am I suppose to think of you for attending that conference? You say you're not a birther, yet there you are.

See the point I'm trying to get across?

The only point I'm seeing, putting together the last hour of posts, is that you seem to be saying that those with offensive signs should be asked to get rid of them. Long time back I said that at any tea parties I've attended, those you are referring to have been asked, they say no. Same with your nutters at marches. Difference between most Democratic gatherings is they don't allow any signs not provided by them-for the most part printed by DNC, moveon. or SEIU.

That's not what the tea parties are about-it's not about 'a message', but a philosophy of limited government. So, we do end up with some fringe, the Democrats have more than a few, but as you like, they are hidden.

Most Democrats I know are not frothing socialists, however it does appear that the current administration have made plenty of room for those that are, though wouldn't carry those signs, while there. To the chagrin of many, their writings, lectures, and previous appearances have made it clear where they stand.

I much rather see them make their feelings obvious, just like the fringe of tea parties do, we know who to avoid. As i said earlier, it's unfortunate that the propagandists against limited government have the MSM on their side, but really of little import since that is not the platform needed today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre, anecdotal evidence such as "I heard what you have had to say about the Tea Parties and offered no conclusion about you whatsoever other than that is what you said about the Tea Parties. The fact that I believe you are wrong in your opinion is based on my own direct, hands on, up close and personal experience with the Tea Parties. You have provided no logical basis for why anything I have said is incorrect."

That is only true for your experience and cannot be logically extended to experiences outside of your own. You certainly have no proof about leftist plants carrying banners, so that is simply dismissed.

In other words, you are way behind in this discussion.

 

[MIPS]

ROFLMAO! so what you're saying is "guilt by proximity"? Apparently you don't understand that one can actually be in the same room with and listening to the same speaker as say a progressive lunatic and not agree with him and yet still respect his right to be there and express his views in a socially acceptable manner.

The tea party movement has made it pretty clear as to what their unifying principles are and only those are too vapid to understand them or outright refuse to look and would rather play "definer" games know what they are, much to your chagrin I'm sure.

Guilt by proximity? No.

However, if you give them a voice and enable them to go on about their radical ideas to applause, what would that say of the audience?

What are you talking about? none of the tea party gatherings I've been to (and I've been to quite a few) had any speakers voicing anything that any reasonable person could construe as "radical ideas" nor was their an "applause" for any "radical ideas". You really should go back and do some research on the background of the anti-war movement in 1960's since there are many similarities between it and the tea party movement in organization and underpinnings, perhaps that will help you understand what you clearly have no clue about at this point.

Apparently you don't understand that paying people to speak at your event to sprout off what you believe to represent your movement has a effect.

MY EVENT? what exactly are you talking about, the so called "tea party convention"? The tea party convention wasn't emblematic of the tea party movement as a whole, it was just one particular group choosing to hold a gathering under the circumstances that the organizers chose, it's not like that group represents anything close to even a significant fraction of tea party supporters. I don't have any problems with what they did but personally I would not have attended that particular event myself since there were some speakers there whose views I don't particularly care for, but I wholeheartedly support their right to do what they did.

The Tea party Movement has made it pretty clear as to what their unifying principles are? Really? Did they have a poll and I missed it? All these sects of the tea party movement are still debating as to what their principles are and should be.

So which are you, one that is to vapid to understand or one who refuses to look and would rather play "definer" games?

Sure, they have a few phrases that are more genetic than anything specific, but that's not exactly the meat of the movement.

Do some research if you are actually interested (I suspect that you're really not though), there are plenty of places on the web that you can do this, I'm not going to waste my time posting them for you YET AGAIN.

 

[FactFinder]

Since the Tea Party is primarily made up of Independents they would by definition not be looking to follow anyone.
If you think you may horse collar them...well good luck with that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since the Tea Party is primarily made up of Independents they would by definition not be looking to follow anyone.
If you think you may horse collar them...well good luck with that.

Well, if they try too hard to buck the two party system they will end up as a few paragraphs in a history book alongside the Perot people.

 

[FactFinder]

Since the Tea Party is primarily made up of Independents they would by definition not be looking to follow anyone.
If you think you may horse collar them...well good luck with that.

Well, if they try too hard to buck the two party system they will end up as a few paragraphs in a history book alongside the Perot people.

A bit too late for that old tripe. Independents now outnumber both parties.

Yall can blame yourselves for attempting to trivialize those who were trying to get ya'all back on a sane course.