(no subject)

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I'm not a liberal, but if I was, I can't imagine what I would have against the Tea Party movement - so hopefully a liberal/democrat could help me out with this.

I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?

Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).

Or am I missing something?

Comments

[hannahsarah.livejournal.com]

So, you're in favor of censorship, and you're against people carrying legally obtained and permitted weapons of self defense.

Gotcha.

[paft.livejournal.com]

hs; So, you're in favor of censorship.

No. I've not called for Tea Partiers to be silenced. The fact that I object to something doesn't mean I want to suppress it. I object to hearing the word "nigger" too. That doesn't mean I want anybody who says or writes it as a racial slur should be legally silenced.

I am in favor of people behaving in a responsible manner on their own. The Tea Partiers are bad enough. The influential people in the Republican party, elected officials and pundits, who pander to them are worse.

If you're going to make it legal for people to bring loaded weapons to public rallies, it shouldn't be too much to ask that you not also engage in inflammatory, violent rhetoric.