Posted on 08/02/2010 12:11:35 PM PDT by massmike
This past Tuesday evening Brian Camenker of MassResistance addressed the Plymouth Rock Tea Party in Pembroke. Also making speeches were several well-known politicians and candidates.
Two days earlier, on Sunday, a Tea Party on the Lexington Battle Green was shut down by "fiscal-only" Republicans who were upset that "social issues" would be discussed if Brian Camenker of MassResistance were present.
Almost immediately after that, a member of the Plymouth Rock Tea Party (which has recently merged with the Cape and Islands group) contacted Camenker and said, "We heard what happened. Come on down and speak at our event on Tuesday."
It was a great evening and the Plymouth Rock Tea Party people are among the best! Apparently, the RINO Republicans weren't able to persuade the Plymouth Rock Tea Party or the candidates to stay away!
(Excerpt) Read more at massresistance.org ...
Homoperversion, abortion "rights," illegal immigration, and oppressive taxes are all branches from the same insideous root. Ignore one, and the others will soon grow up around to choke us. We are stupid to not guard the entire house.
I agree 100%. I am not beholden to any movement that supports re-writing the Constitution or that supports or endorses candidates that are pushing an agenda contrary to the Constitution.
I am though very open-minded to movements geared towards Constitutional amendments or to legal battles regarding the Constitution or in other methods to restore and defend our Constitution.
Very well said!
No attacks from the left. Youre just paranoid.
What Tea party has endorsed big govt left wingers?
“These liberal conservatives fail to realize the fact that all 31 of 31 states that held referendum on perverted marriage told the perverts NO. All 31 states..”
And they did that without Tea Parties.
They are welcome to support the TPs in pursuit of smaller government.
Again your side wants to shift the debate. The debate has not been about someone specific. It is about the fact that you and some others do not want the TEA party to be able to consider certain aspects of the left-wing big government agenda. So obviously you want to give some cover for candidates who promote these other left-wing big government intrusions.
The arguments you are making are from the left. You do not want certain of the big-government left-wing agenda addressed by the TEA party.
So then you are perfectly fine with the TEA party supporting and endorsing a candidate who agrees with the big government left-wing agenda to force their perverted morality on taxpayers and businesses as long as they claim to be fiscal conservatives? That is what I get out of your post.
Yes. On this thread, too.
I would view a constitutional convention with extreme alarm. Such a convention would be too easily taken over by the socialists.
And again you miss the point that you made a comment based on something that has not happened. I didnt create the Tea Party, but for the people that did, they did it as a response to government spending. You are the one who wants to change it to also taking on laws you dont like.
There are plenty of other organizations that take on the social side. No one seems to want the Chamber of Commerce to address social issues, just the Tea Party. Probably because the Tea Party, as a protest of government spending, can bring in socially liberal people as well as socially conservative ones. You seem to have a problem with that. You dont want liberals to help you get spending under control, and you would rather be ideologically pure than have spending cut. So really, you are the big left-wing fan, because your resistance to the Tea Party’s goals will lead to its failure and to the left’s success of more government.
And just because someone disagrees with you, doesnt mean they support left wing big govt intrusions. That is about the lamest bit of twisted logic you could use.
I dont want the NRA to talk about fiscal issues. I dont want the Catholic League to talk about defense issues. Why should the Tea Party be any different. If you want Jesus, you dont seek out a stockbroker.
Btw, why dont you want the Tea Party to address the defense issue. Dont you want to know if the Tea PArty supports the war? Or are you a big lib because you dont want them taking on liberal ideas?
I am not missing any point. You and others are the ones who want the TEA party to be ideologically pure and to purge it of social issues. Haven’t you read the thread? People like you have turned on certain conservatives in favor of left-wing advocates.
The TEA party was created in response to a government expansion in every facet. It does not just concern itself with one issue. It also is not simply a one issue advocacy group as you claim but a grass root movement for restoring limited government and individual liberty. You are the one claiming that it must accept social liberalism (which is for big government) and that those who disagree should go elsewhere to another organization. It is people like you hold to such a twisted logic that will lead to the failure of the TEA party.
You are the one arguing that social conservatives should go elsewhere to another group so that you can bring social liberals into the TEA party. There is no twisted logic involved in seeing how you favor big government intrusions into our lives then.
Yet you want social liberals, and the gay rights movement to join the TEA party? That is some real twisted logic.
And I never said that I didn’t want National Defense to be apart of issues addressed by TEA party patriots. I guess you would want to invite Code Pink to join the TEA party as well.
No one but the "progressives" and outright marxists have anything to gain from a con con!
Allow the “no social issues” contingent into the Tea Parties and you may as well not have them at all. They will become the GOP — in other words, spineless losers.
“So then you are perfectly fine with the TEA party supporting and endorsing a candidate who agrees with the big government left-wing agenda to force their perverted morality on taxpayers and businesses as long as they claim to be fiscal conservatives? That is what I get out of your post.”
I meant precisely what I wrote, and not your contortion of it.
It was a question and I guess you would rather not just simply answer it but instead dance around it.
You said: “And they did that without Tea Parties.”
It seems to me that you want to purge the TEA party of addressing having government expand into finanicially punishing taxpayers and businesses for not marching lockstep with a perverted left-wing morality. Is that your position?
I’m done with you.
You keep twisting and contorting other peoples’ words, picking fights, etc.
If an agenda has a 31 for 31 record, why do they need to change their approach?
Are you worried, that suddenly they won’t win anymore, without Tea Party support?
If you are interested in Tea Party issues, join them and support them.
If not, don’t join them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.