I may have been wrong about the Tea Party. Mea Culpa??

[HarveyDarkey]

I've been rethinking my position. Maybe I've been too hard on the Tea Party (AKA Teabaggers).


* Maybe Sarah Palin IS a great intellect, just taken out of context.

* Maybe Delaware's O'Donnell is right that masturbation should be a crime and that the 1st amendment doesn't prevent government co-mingling with religion.

* Maybe Ted Danz the congressional candidate from upstate NY who says a no marriage should be recognized as legal unless it was sanctified by a "RELIGIOUS UNION" has a point.

* Perhaps Glenn Beck is right, that we need to put God back in our country.

* Maybe a founder of the Tea Party who says a sitting congressman should be prevented from serving and ousted from his duly elected position because he is a Muslim, has a point.

* Maybe churches who enjoy tax exemption SHOULD be allowed to promote one party over another from his pulpit and as a spokesman of God.

Snip:

Maybe I was just plain mistaken in believing that the Tea Baggers are largely made up of under educated ditto heads, fringe right wing reactionairies, religious fanatics, hate filled and bigoted racist homophobic white trash. Maybe I was wrong; maybe I owe them an apology. Maybe ... but I fucking doubt it.

http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/2010/10/i-may-have-been-wrong-about-tea-party.html?spref=fb

[Pharaoh]

1. Ha ha ha!!!!!!!

That last line is a killer :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: K&R

[Vickers]

2. LOL and k&r. n/t

[applegrove]

3. Well done.

[HughMoran]

4. Very Funny

:thumbsup:

[CommonSensePLZ]

5. You've opened my eyes!

:o

[malaise]

6. Freaking perfect

:rofl:

[madmax]

7. *snort* nt

[political_Dem]

8. Excellent. K&R.

[sohndrsmith]

9. Beautiful. Heck, even the TeaPartiers do the opposite of what they

supposedly espouse and support!

The foremost tenets of the Tea Party, (and in italics, my interpretation of what I think they mean):

1. Honoring freedom
(everyone's freedom, including the freedom of those one disagrees with)

2. Honoring the Constitution
(as it was truly designed and meant to be utilized: within the context of existing realities of the day, proving it's goals to be positive, hopeful and brilliant)
2.b. Recognizing the most fundamental purposes of this document, particularly those that represent the very foundation such a rule of law was designed to create, the most important of which is arguably the deliberate, specific acknowledgment to the separation of Church and State. So important was this issue to the founders that they start right out with it - bam - top of the list. Number 1.

3. Reducing spending/size of government
(upon appropriate evidence of waste/corruption/uselessness, and doing so would be beneficial for the right reasons while doing no harm to the least deserving of such)

4. Upholding states rights and individual rights
(when appropriate, reasonable, equally representative for all, and within the accurate scope of constitutionality)


Far as I can tell, The TeaPartiers want to:

1. Cherry-pick certain freedoms for certain groups and categories that they agree with while abolishing or refusing for those they disagree with, even while retaining the very same for themselves as they see fit. NEWSFLASH: Whatever this describes, it is the opposite of and total lack of respect for - freedom.

2. Revert to or reinterpret the Constitution, as written, fully literally (yet again partially and for things they support, ignoring or wanting to repeal those they don't) to some sort of historical and irrational distortion - as if doing so is somehow "pure" and "right" or something, when the reality is that there is a reason why obsolete standards are obsolete.
2.b. Undermine the most fundamental beauty of this nation's founding in it's specific delineation for separation of Church and State.
The unmistakable absurdity of re-enforcing such things that may have made sense in past decades or centuries.... should **really be** embarrassing... no? Nope. Total oblivion.

3. Increase government power towards their bias,

4. Demand heightened, restrictive, hostile "state's rights" and individual rights (again, they are clueless to the fact that what they actually describe are, again, the opposite of the actual definition when they only want to do it for A, B and D but not C and E.
--
They also seem to to be completely blind to the fact that this very sort of colonialism they seem to be promoting is the very thing that the Constitution was designed to protect this Union against! Isn't it? Am I really that confused? I mean... seriously, what the...?

This really seems like it should not be happening, especially to the level it is, outside a very imaginative and frightening work of fiction.

I honestly cannot see any correlation to what they proclaim to support - compared to how they then define it, because their definitions fully contradict the issue - in this universe anyway.

Equally perplexing is that I have yet to understand how anyone could support things that have all but proven to be directly detrimental to the things they stand for, not to mention things that are far more likely to be harmful to them personally, too... I could go on, but thankfully, I won't. (Once again I write a reply too long for anyone want to bother reading. Editing is a skill I really wish I could get the hang of.)

[southmost]

10. and i fucking doubt it as well

great post!