TEA PARTY: Pro- or anti-war?

[wgadget]

Please explain your answer. I have drawn some conclusions of my own.

[TXcarlosTX]

The Ron Paul wing is anti-war. Maybe some of the other wing is also because of the money it cost.

[Sola_Fide]

Open to the anti-war position.

[pcosmar]

Who's tea party?

[trey4sports]

both

[CableNewsJunkie]

The Party Leaders - profit from war politically and monetarily
|
Loyal Followers - trigger happy, hungry for propaganda that Party leaders provide to justify immoral actions, can't wait for an awesome display of military power
|
Squeamish Followers - don't know what they believe, they just go along with whoever sounds most authoritative



The time is soon approaching where we'll need to cut our uneasy alliance with the Party Leaders, discredit them, and assert our power to win over the Squeamish Followers.

[speciallyblend]

Palin/Co-opted Establishment Wing= pro /needs some educating or election loses!!
Ron Paul Wing=Anti-war,Non-interventionists who need to somehow reclaim the gop and their failed policies!

Liberty Tea Party open to all supporters!
Neo-Con Tea Party blur the lines and say a dem is running you must vote for us so we can use government to save you from the devil dem! Loves undeclared wars and occupying countries to secure the US empire!!

[Kludge]

Depends on the individual. The Tea Party focuses on lessening government taxes and eliminating welfare. That's really all I think you'll find they agree on. You can't really pin them down on this, even when military costs account for ~25-50% of federal expenditure.

As far as individual candidates of the Tea Party, though, I've not found a single mainstream Tea Party candidate who is consistently anti-war, with the kinda-sorta exception of Rand Paul.

[TheDriver]

Anti-war is a leftist term (or at least most on the right associate the term with leftists) that will never fit the Tea Party.

[therepublic]

The Party Leaders - profit from war politically and monetarily
|
Loyal Followers - trigger happy, hungry for propaganda that Party leaders provide to justify immoral actions, can't wait for an awesome display of military power
|
Squeamish Followers - don't know what they believe, they just go along with whoever sounds most authoritative



The time is soon approaching where we'll need to cut our uneasy alliance with the Party Leaders, discredit them, and assert our power to win over the Squeamish Followers.

The best way to kill the Ron Paul movement is to attack members rather than the Federal Reserve. This happens too often on this forum...bashing of Christian members to the Tea Party, and most anyone.

It is no wounder that people are so misinformed about what Ron Paul stands for. Are you deliberately trying to destroy any chance we have of getting him elected?

[wgadget]

Here's my view:

The "leaders" who co-opted the Original and Best (Ron Paul) Tea Party are the pro-war /Establishment group, who cannot and will not allow any anti-war utterances to make the news. Why? BECAUSE they are afraid more DEMOCRATS would join the movement.

The result of more Democrats joining the movement would be disastrous to the Powers That Be, whom we all know are truly all One Big Happy Party. A true pitting of American citizens against the corrupt DC politburo would put the Establishment Dems/Pugs out of business.

Basically, the same reason they hated Ron Paul in 2008.

[Brett85]

Anti-war is a leftist term (or at least most on the right associate the term with leftists) that will never fit the Tea Party.

That's why it needs to be phrased "anti intervention" rather than "anti war." The Republican Party used to believe in a non interventionalist foreign policy. They just need to be reminded of their roots.

[wgadget]

IMO, if Tea Party is truly ANTI-BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING, they are hypocrites if they don't include the bloated Department of Defense.

Even IT is economically unsustainable.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I'd be willing to bet 90%+ of any good-sized tea party rally are pro-way. They'll say Iraq was good, the surge worked and would be open to preemptively bombing Iran. They're probably sour on Afghanistan, but only because "it's Obama's war" now.

[PreDeadMan]

Tea party...... hm.... a bunch of people yelling, holding up signs... thinking things will change if their "person" gets in... what did some dude in the Reagan administration say I'm paraphrasing here "let them yell and scream and hold signs all they want as long as they pay their taxes". To answer the thread's question I do believe that it's PRO war bullcrap and propaganda.

[wgadget]

This just in from another forum:

When told that Bill Maher was part of the Original Tea Party:

"Many people were original Tea Party supporters
Until they realized that they had no direction and no plan to actually achieve what they claimed -
Many people saw through their method of:

When anyone asks specific questions -

Play it safe and attack The Obama administration - "


This needs to be stopped. It is stunting the growth of the patriot movement, which SHOULD embody ALL parties.

[CableNewsJunkie]

The best way to kill the Ron Paul movement is to attack members rather than the Federal Reserve. This happens too often on this forum...bashing of Christian members to the Tea Party, and most anyone.

It is no wounder that people are so misinformed about what Ron Paul stands for. Are you deliberately trying to destroy any chance we have of getting him elected?


No, but we need to develop efficient ways of politely articulating why people like Karl Rove, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc. are wrong.

[Imaginos]

Palin/Co-opted Establishment Wing= pro /needs some educating or election loses!!
Ron Paul Wing=Anti-war,Non-interventionists who need to somehow reclaim the gop and their failed policies!

Liberty Tea Party open to all supporters!
Neo-Con Tea Party blur the lines and say a dem is running you must vote for us so we can use government to save you from the devil dem! Loves undeclared wars and occupying countries to secure the US empire!!
+1
Nicely summarized!

[wgadget]

Interesting that most of the replies here think that it's PRO-WAR.

YOU SEE, the media's power has had its intended effect. We Ron Paulers have been squelched again. Sigh.

[Pauls' Revere]

Anti-war is a leftist term (or at least most on the right associate the term with leftists) that will never fit the Tea Party.

I respectfully disagree, anti-war should NEVER be about a party. No party owns or should own this issue. It's like saying the GOP is a pro-war party which we know both parties are heavily involved with the war machine.

[therepublic]

That's why it needs to be phrased "anti intervention" rather than "anti war." The Republican Party used to believe in a non interventionalist foreign policy. They just need to be reminded of their roots.

I agree.

[wgadget]

Seems I heard Glenn Beck on the radio the other day saying 1. DO NOT BE WEIRD...Put the costumes away. 2. DON'T BE CARRYING SIGNS. Etc, etc. Hmmmm.

No signs? Nothing saying GET THE HELL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN for the TV cameras? Nothing saying STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM? Nothing saying END THE FEDERAL RESERVE?

Wow.

[therepublic]

No, but we need to develop efficient ways of politely articulating why people like Karl Rove, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc. are wrong.

I agree with your statement.

However most Tea Party members disagree with Karl Rove. They stood up to him when he asked them not to support Christine O'Donnell. They told him he was part of the establishment that did not understand what was going on.

The Tea Party has no head, and is made up of Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Independents, Libertarians, and even Liberals (some are non-interventionists, and some are for "preemptive war)...They do not always agree, but are willing to work together to defeat the common enemy. ..attacking issues, and not each other. That is what it will take to defeat the real enemy who is too powerful to defeat alone.

[CableNewsJunkie]

Seems I heard Glenn Beck on the radio the other day saying 1. DO NOT BE WEIRD...Put the costumes away. 2. DON'T BE CARRYING SIGNS. Etc, etc. Hmmmm.

No signs? Nothing saying GET THE HELL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN for the TV cameras? Nothing saying STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM? Nothing saying END THE FEDERAL RESERVE?

Wow.



Yea, I thought the same thing...clever way to try and convince people to suppress their own rights to free speech.

[wgadget]

I agree with your statement.

However most Tea Party members disagree with Karl Rove. They stood up to him when he asked them not to support Christine O'Donnell. They told him he was part of the establishment that did not understand what was going on.

The Tea Party has no head, and is made up of Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Independents, Libertarians, and even Liberals (some are non-interventionists, and some are for "preemptive war)...They do not always agree, but are willing to work together to defeat the common enemy. ..attacking issues, and not each other. That is what it will take to defeat the real enemy who is too powerful to defeat alone.

I agree, and the more diverse views it can attract, the better. But we're up against the media, who want to portray the TP as right-wing wackos.

Tell me, is Karl Rove considered a neocon? I honestly don't follow the man.

[Minuteman2012]

I don't like the word "anti-war". The word takes on the connotation of being a pacifist. I am not a pacifist, Ron Paul is not a pacifist, and most of his supporters are not pacifists. The title should be rephrased, "Interventionist or Non-Interventionist". I would say there are more interventionists than non-interventionists among those who consider themselves tea partiers(I don't). But I would say, just from what I have heard and read is that the percentage of non-interventionists is higher in the Tea Party than the Republican Party. And some interventionists are turning against the war in Afghanistan(Though they couple any such statements with ones advocating violence against Iran).

[wgadget]

I don't like the word "anti-war". The word takes on the connotation of being a pacifist. I am not a pacifist, Ron Paul is not a pacifist, and most of his supporters are not pacifists. The title should be rephrased, "Interventionist or Non-Interventionist". I would say there are more interventionists than non-interventionists among those who consider themselves tea partiers(I don't). But I would say, just from what I have heard and read is that the percentage of non-interventionists is higher in the Tea Party than the Republican Party. And some interventionists are turning against the war in Afghanistan(Though they couple any such statements with ones advocating violence against Iran).

Okay, I went in and tried to change it. We'll see if it comes up on the home page.

[nobody's_hero]

They may be hard to educate, but we can't give up.

One day perhaps, I will put together a thesis on how to win over war supporters.

I've been hit and miss, so I'm perfecting my strategy.

I will say that subtlety, humility, and 'baby-steps' seem to work better than "ZOMG WE NEED TO END THIS WAR RIGHT NOW IT WAS ALL FOR OIL!!!"

(As true as that may be, and as our patience to see this war end has turned to frustration for many, you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar)

[therepublic]

I agree, and the more diverse views it can attract, the better. But we're up against the media, who want to portray the TP as right-wing wackos.

Tell me, is Karl Rove considered a neocon? I honestly don't follow the man.

Yes the media, and the establishment twist the facts, in order to weaken their opposition. I do not know Mr. Rove's beliefs, but he is apparently trying to bring the Tea Party into the control of his fold...but he "aint" having much luck so far.

[therepublic]

I don't like the word "anti-war". The word takes on the connotation of being a pacifist. I am not a pacifist, Ron Paul is not a pacifist, and most of his supporters are not pacifists. The title should be rephrased, "Interventionist or Non-Interventionist". I would say there are more interventionists than non-interventionists among those who consider themselves tea partiers(I don't). But I would say, just from what I have heard and read is that the percentage of non-interventionists is higher in the Tea Party than the Republican Party. And some interventionists are turning against the war in Afghanistan(Though they couple any such statements with ones advocating violence against Iran).

Very good point Minuteman. There is so much misinformation out there about Ron Paul, and libertarians in general...partly due to the media, and partly our own fault for bashing members, and not choosing our words better.

[Knightskye]

The Ron Paul wing is anti-war.

It's more like the Ron Paul tail-feather.

[WaltM]

just like this (except the opposite)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/677726_05b089db4a.jpg

[speciallyblend]

It's more like the Ron Paul tail-feather.

tickle the gop till they give in or pull the feather and let the gop crash and burn!!

[speciallyblend]

They may be hard to educate, but we can't give up.

One day perhaps, I will put together a thesis on how to win over war supporters.

I've been hit and miss, so I'm perfecting my strategy.

I will say that subtlety, humility, and 'baby-steps' seem to work better than "ZOMG WE NEED TO END THIS WAR RIGHT NOW IT WAS ALL FOR OIL!!!"

(As true as that may be, and as our patience to see this war end has turned to frustration for many, you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar)

some of the worst war supporters are the ones that explain support in the name of god! Honestly beginning to think many are trying to bring on the 2nd coming of Christ. It is very disturbing when a republican pastor uses God to justify undeclared wars! It is like trying to argue with a Brick Wall! I give up on those folks! The only way you can change them is to pretend your jesus and try to fake a miracle!!!