It's to show the people that the primary principles and positions of the right don't have anything to do with abortion, or creationism, or same **** marriage
Which is funny because you argue tooth and nail for eliminating abortion, teaching Creationism in schools as a legitimate sphere of science and preventing SSM.
I have never argued for eliminating abortion, nor teaching creationism in school as science, nor preventing SSM. You make the classic leftist mistake of assuming that if I don't advocate *for* something, I'm advocating *against* it. I don't think the state should fund abortion. I don't think the state should teach creationism in science class, but I don't think it should restrict other forms of religious speech in public places (like schools). And I don't think the state should "prevent same **** marriage". I just don't think the state should "subsidize same **** marriage". I make a distinction between allowing something and not funding it.
All positions that are readily and commonly attacked by the left primarily because most people haven't been taught what liberty and rights and small government really means. As more people learn those things and understand them, then the differences I've pointed out will become more apparent to them, and the left will have a harder time demonizing conservatives on these issues.
Well, keep fighting the good fight to show us all that that's not what the Right is really all about.
It's not. The left intentionally pushes for big government actions involving those things so that when conservatives oppose them on big government grounds, the left can claim that conservatives oppose them because they hate gays, or women, or minorities, or science. That is what you're doing, right? I mean, I've seen you do exactly that kind associative attack against me hundreds of times on this forum. I'll say "I have no problem with **** couples getting married, but I don't think those marriages should qualify for state funded benefits", and you'll twist and spin it around to me wanting to restrict the "right to marry" from homosexuals. And when I argue that's not what I'm saying, instead of accepting that, you insist that I'm just saying that, but really mean <insert ridiculous strawman here>.
Why do you ignore what I say and pretend I really mean something else? Only one reason: You know it's easier to argue against the "something else" than what I actually say. That's the point of the tea party movement, to try to get people who've likely never heard actual conservative arguments and reasoning to be exposed to those things instead of the liberal interpretations like the ones you use. And it will be costly at first because of that lack of knowledge, but as actual conservative message gets out there, that will change. You'll start to see people realizing that conservatives aren't the boogie man that the left has been painting them out to be, but actually have some pretty good ideas that make sense and might just be better than what the Democrats are selling.
Given how much trouble I have just on this forum getting people to get past their own knee-jerk assumptions, I can totally see how this can be problematic in the short term.