Ok, I overstated your position. When you said: "I am not saying that we need to force this certain group to change its stance but that I would not support any specific part of the TEA party movement that gets cozy with social Marxism or other far left-wing stances" you were just saying that any group that is fiscal-only wouldn't get your support; and "I would call them out on it as well" means you would oppose them. I apologize for missing the distinction before.
If you would even have taken the time to read the article of how it is the exact opposite way around whereas ‘social conservatives’ were being shunned in order to make things more cozy for social liberals
Yes, I did read the article, and re-read it just now to make sure I didn't miss something.
And your position that it doesn’t matter whether someone is a social Marxist or not as long as they claim to be for fiscal conservatism is total BS as well
Except you don't know what my position is. I never stated my position, or how I personally felt about the Lexington Battle Green situation.What I did say is each group has the right to concentrate on a particular issue, such as taxing and spending, if they so wish, and therefore can limit discussion and speakers to that particular topic. Since the discussion on this thread seemed to have moved past discussion of this particular event, I addressed my general concern about people fighting each other when that seemed to me to be unnecessary and antiproductive.
Now if you want my personal opinion: Without knowing all the details, it does seem like canceling the Lexington tea party was an overreaction and a mistake. Christen Varley appears to have acted improperly when convincing other speakers to not attend. Was she one of the organizers of the Lexington party, or just butting in? If she wasn't one of the organizers, what were the objectives of those that did organize the party?
I also personally believe that tackling the social and moral decay of the nation is imperative to saving it. My beliefs track fairly closely to the Constitution Party's platform. I may even be more of a social conservative than you are, or I may not. Neither one of us knows without comparing notes.
Does that clarify things a little?
Apology accepted. But….
I did though know your position because you already stated it. You said “If their focus is completely and only lower taxes, it doesn’t matter what members’ social, judicial, literalist, revisionist, or fascist ideas are. “
You didn’t state this as if you were only claiming it to be their right but that it was your position. You claimed that it didn’t matter. I disagree with this position because it will allow the social Marxist the open door to corrupting the TEA party cause.
As has been pointed out throughout this thread there are always direct correlations between policies considered social and policies considered fiscal. Courts are used to attack taxpayers and businesses all of the time based upon leftwing social policy positions. Being that the TEA party movement is most concerned with the endorsement and support of candidates it would lead to corruption of the movement not to have some consideration for all aspects of policy (social & fiscal) that a candidate would support. And as you said earlier the TEA party has no leader so there is no such rule that we must be neutral on policy considered to be social policy.
Here today even we are knowing seeing reports of left-wing activists trying to corrupt and manipulate the TEA party movement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2565274/posts
To claim that being a member of the TEA party means turning a blind eye to who and what a candidate is fully about in order to make it a neutral movement for the social Marxist claiming to be fiscally conservative or for the Code Pink moonbat “defund the military” type to join is foolish.
You do not have to agree with me but that is my position. I will make it known whether be it here or at TEA party event or anywhere.