It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Tea Party Member speaks out.

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Hi beezzer!!!

When you state "we" in your OP, are you referring to the group you meet with? Your local Tea Party organization? I'm not gonna do as many here already has and pound you as if you are trying to talk for the entire movement.

Thanks!
OiO




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by LanMan54
 


That's why we all need to speak up, and fight what is going on.

If enough of us do, we can win.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneisOne
Hi beezzer!!!

When you state "we" in your OP, are you referring to the group you meet with? Your local Tea Party organization? I'm not gonna do as many here already has and pound you as if you are trying to talk for the entire movement.

Thanks!
OiO

Yes. Just our group. I'd be remiss to speak for an entire organization anyway. Again, it'd be putting a face to it, and my picture isn't pretty.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Congratulations on your choice to be a Tea Party member!
I agree with a lot of the ideas I've heard come from there, but they are being used by the right AND left for nefarious purposes, I'm afraid. So I wish you good luck in forming the party to be what it was originally meant to be before being hijacked for political gain.

Now, as regards people saying that Loughner is a Tea Party hero... Don't you know they're just saying that to get your goat (piss you off)? It's a political bait maneuver. Don't take the bait. Don't fall for it.

While it's probably true that there is at least one person who considers themselves a Tea Party member that thinks what Loughner did is cool, the vast majority of people (including you guys) think his actions are despicable. Most of us know that.
Fear not. And my advice? Don't fight it. Ignore it.


Excellent post, and quite true. We should not judge any group by its "least common denominators", because ALL GROUPS will be found to have skeletons in their closets if one chooses to look hard enough. Worse, we seem to also have plenty of people standing by to manufacture a "skeleton" if none can really be found.

I also like the OP's later comment about how it's very different to judge a person anonymously vs. in person. And if you can't really meet a person due to being online, etc. Try open-minded dialog instead. Case in point, I now have many people listed as ATS friends that I used to "argue" with and had listed as "foes". What always happened is that one day we found ourselves agreeing on something, took a step back and said "whoa!".

For all who want to just hate the faceless "Tea Party", consider trying to find some common ground with the real people that make up the "Tea Party" instead. The OP posted some of their core beliefs. Any of them you also agree with? Same goes for the "other side". All I know is that is has worked for me in the past.
edit on 1/14/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11PB11

I think if people were honest with themselves they'd see that democrats(liberals) began the hate speech with Bush in a way that is much much much worse than anything i've heard a conservative say. But lets be honest, liberals only ever see one side and forget just a few years ago their hate speech and threats, and now they pretend like the've never said anything hateful.


Im supposing you are convienently forgetting rush limbaugh during the clinton years....didnt he call clintons teenage daughter a dog?

But somehow the democrats started the partisan rhetoric years later....and the left is the only group of people to "see one side and forget just a few years ago their hate speech and threats"?

This is how history gets changed....just keep repeating it.
edit on 14-1-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Thank you for your post and insight.
People need to look past what the media and pundits focus on, especially with the Tea Party. We're just regular folks, maybe a stoner or two in the group (they eat most of the doughnuts) and even a conspiracy geek (me) hidden in there as well.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


I speak for me. An individual. I believe strongly in personal responsibility. I am a member, but I can't vouch for all members everywhere.
I wouldn't want to.
Perhaps it would have been better if I pointed out that I am ONE VOICE in a choir. Can't tell you about the other singers.



Hopefully you can understand why I might ask.


Originally posted by beezzer
The group I belong to doesn't kill people. We don't like serial killers either. Some of us hunt, some drink, some smoke, some do that "hippy" thing too. But it's cool.

We just don't like big government. ANY big government. Left, right. . . . it doesn't matter.

We trade ideas on retirement plans because we don't expect social security. We have doctors and nurses in our little group that swap medical approaches in case obamacare takes hold. None of us are on welfare. Many of us are former military.

We don't have shrines to Dick Chenney, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush.


I saw the word "we" a few times and assumed you might be speaking for more than just you. I was curious if by "we" you meant all TEA partiers, just a small group of people you know, or just you. "None of us" really seems to be speaking about more than just you. Hope you can understand why I ask for clarification on who "we" actually is. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 11PB11
 


Your post does a great job of bashing liberals and Democrats without even touching the topic of this thread. Are you trying to present yourself as a TEA party person and pronounce that it is a purely conservative movement against Democrats or is that just a rant against liberals for no apparent reason?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


You know, it might be rude of me to say "we" instead of "I" on some things, but I know the members in our group and I think I can speak for them, and from the flurry of emails I've received, that we are sickened by the actions recently.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by 11PB11
 


Your post does a great job of bashing liberals and Democrats without even touching the topic of this thread. Are you trying to present yourself as a TEA party person and pronounce that it is a purely conservative movement against Democrats or is that just a rant against liberals for no apparent reason?


Only if liberals want a bigger government, only if liberals want to take away personal freedoms, only if liberals eschew the values of personal responsibility.
The heck with right/left Bush showed that big government can exist with republicans as well.

I like my freedoms. Anyone that wants to take them, isn't on my Christmas card list.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Why does less government have to be a "conservative" idea?
Why can't it be an "idea"?
Why does personal responsibility have to be a conservative mantra?
Why can't it be just a mantra?

Just because political parties hijack a thing, it shouldn't devalue it's meaning. Its worth.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I guess I am just trying to be clear on if you are here speaking for the TEA party ideals, your personal ideals, the ideals of a small group of people, or what. There are a lot of people that claim TEA party affiliation and they cover a vast spectrum of types. Many actually do a great job of contradicting each other. I was just trying to understand how much of the TEA party it is your "we" represented. Please do not take it as anything more than an attempt to understand. When I see people claim there is no TEA party and then try to speak as a representative of a "we" I get a little confused as to what that voice is really going to mean in the grand scheme of things. Basically, because there are things I would like to understand about the TEA party but I am not sure if by asking you I am asking them, some of them, or just you.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I am not a professed Tea Party member. I have observed though that the government is using the MSN as a tool to demonize and further their agenda. I think that this movement is a threat to both parties. A huge thorn in the side of the Republican party. I think the Republicans are giving the appearance of pacifying the Tea Party to keep them from revolting, but behind the scenes they are secretly trying to destroy them. Two's company, three's a crowd. Everyone should be aware by now that both parties work hand in hand giving the illusion that they are arch enemies when in reality they are sleeping in the same bed. I see the Tea Party's main goal and theme is holding and keeping the federal government fiscally responsible and to uphold the constitution. No matter what your feelings are toward the Tea Party, you have to admit, it feels pretty good to have a watchdog holding the politicians head to the fire and eyeing them with a magnifying glass to keep them in line. In my opinion, all countries need groups like these, no matter how irritating they may be to you.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by beezzer
 


I guess I am just trying to be clear on if you are here speaking for the TEA party ideals, your personal ideals, the ideals of a small group of people, or what. There are a lot of people that claim TEA party affiliation and they cover a vast spectrum of types. Many actually do a great job of contradicting each other. I was just trying to understand how much of the TEA party it is your "we" represented. Please do not take it as anything more than an attempt to understand. When I see people claim there is no TEA party and then try to speak as a representative of a "we" I get a little confused as to what that voice is really going to mean in the grand scheme of things. Basically, because there are things I would like to understand about the TEA party but I am not sure if by asking you I am asking them, some of them, or just you.


I think the difference between you and people who align themselves with the tea party is that we and those that think alike already know what the tea party stands for. Limited gov, low taxes, etc are the fundamentals..... Libs believe that gov should be big and basically control our lives and raise taxes which is contrary to our founders. The biggest difference between the 2 sides are the fundamental beliefs as stated above. There's plenty of ppl who claim a side but believe there are gray areas and topics that not all on one side agree with... it's the fundamentals that are important.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 





Also it is up to the SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of things not the tea party.


Unfortunately the SCOTUS is composed of humans and at least once it has ruled AGAINST the American people because of political pressure. FDR and his fight with SCOTUS is a classic example and has far reaching consequences.

SEE: www.americanheritage.com...

And the Commerce Clause that resulted:
www.ponderpost.com...



...The central vision of limited Commerce Clause power lasted until Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency in the 1930s. Under FDR’s New Deal, the federal role ballooned out of all recognition. During FDR’s first few years in power, the Supreme Court struck down one New Deal law after another, holding again and again that they exceeded Congress’ constitutional powers.

Roosevelt became so frustrated with the Supreme Court that in February 1937 he proposed legislation which would increase the number of Supreme Court Justices from nine to fifteen. As President, FDR would get to nominate six new justices who would uphold his new laws. Under the threat of this plan, one judge — Justice Roberts — began to vote for, rather than against, FDR’s legislation. That made all the difference.

It soon became evident that Congress could do almost anything it wanted under the expanded theory of the Commerce Clause. In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled against a farmer who grew his own wheat on his own land and fed it to his own chickens and cows. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). Even though he never sold the wheat, much less across state lines, by not buying wheat from other farmers, he had affected interstate commerce enough to bring him within the new scope of the Commerce Clause. From that moment, most legal scholars assumed that Congress could assert power over virtually anything under the Commerce Clause."

Congress now regulates almost anything under its power to regulate “commerce among the states.”
www.hslda.org...



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


You make me sick man. Seriously you do. The left bashes the right, the right bashes the left. It is not new, clinton wasn't the first to be bashed like that either. So what? This whole you did it first, no you did, no you did! Yall sound like children on the playground, don't you realize that?

Honestly, the minute the tea party allowed itself to be labeled as right wing, the power of the movement died. Now we are looked at and smeared as an extremist branch of the republicans. That whole label needs to be ripped off of the movement.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I am the tea party.

One voice in a "choir" of voices saying, ENOUGH.

Enough of the corruption.
Enough of the control.
Enough of the regulation.
Enough of the devaluing of our dollar.
Enough of the cronyism.
Enough of the bank fraudsters.
Enough of the un Constitutional mandates, regulations, legislation.
Enough of the federal takeover of State's Rights.
Enough of the federal takeover of Individual Rights.
Enough of the failure to control our borders.
Enough of the global police force.
Enough of the failure to get us energy independent.
Enough of the removal of property rights.

ENOUGH!

I am just one opinion amongst a cavalcade of voices. We do have one absolute thing in common. We have had enough of the status quo.

I am one voice amongst a cacophony of voices. Hear us roar.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by beezzer
 


I guess I am just trying to be clear on if you are here speaking for the TEA party ideals, your personal ideals, the ideals of a small group of people, or what. There are a lot of people that claim TEA party affiliation and they cover a vast spectrum of types. Many actually do a great job of contradicting each other. I was just trying to understand how much of the TEA party it is your "we" represented. Please do not take it as anything more than an attempt to understand. When I see people claim there is no TEA party and then try to speak as a representative of a "we" I get a little confused as to what that voice is really going to mean in the grand scheme of things. Basically, because there are things I would like to understand about the TEA party but I am not sure if by asking you I am asking them, some of them, or just you.

(sorry, the wife called, delayed)
That's the point of the thread. I am a Tea Party member. I don't speak for the Tea Party. I speak for me, who just happens to be a Tea Party member.
The entire spectrum is covered, I just represent one tiny portion of it.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Thank you. You may have put it better than I could have.

We are just people who are no afraid to stand up and be noticed. Be counted. We are not afraid anymore, period!



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Erica1631
 


Well said. I'd like to think of myself as someone who is watching and is taking notice. Regardless of party affiliation.



new topics




 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join