Is Every Tea Party Member Nuts???

[drtywhtboy]

Is Every Tea Party Member Nuts???


Pretty much.

What's even worse is to be stupid enough to support obama, tea party crazy is a good thing, obama supporting is a stupid thing and to support something as stupid is that makes you crazier than any tea party member could ever be.

To support the teabaggers or GOP in any way is a sure sign of having a severe mental illness

Anyone who contends that the Tea Party is nuts: Jake-ass, ussrcitizem and blank label...I am a member of the tea party and you guys are talking out of your ASS cuz your mouth knows better...

 

[Full-Auto]

What's even worse is to be stupid enough to support obama, tea party crazy is a good thing, obama supporting is a stupid thing and to support something as stupid is that makes you crazier than any tea party member could ever be.

To support the teabaggers or GOP in any way is a sure sign of having a severe mental illness

Anyone who contends that the Tea Party is nuts: Jake-ass, ussrcitizem and blank label...I am a member of the tea party and you guys are talking out of your ASS cuz your mouth knows better...

Responsibility frightens them. Remember SS is rock solid safe...............As long as we can borrow.......

 

[MarcATL]

One more time
The tea party started in 2006 have a great day.

Yes, and the Republican Party was started in 1854.

So. What?

his point is that the tea party's formation was not in reaction to Obama's election

OK, so...I believe the point was that where were these people and their FAUXNEWS support then?

 

[Obamanation666]

The real problem is that the Tea Party isn't conservative enough. They started out rallying to overthrow the government like was done in 1776, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, and all that sort of thing. Nowadays, they've gone soft and just talk about balancing the budget and protesting abortion. What happened to armed revolution? What happened to bringing back slavery? I'm disappointed.

 

[Firehorse]

We don't care about abortion ... Not something we think about on a daily basis. Tea party is about the government ... And keeping it out of our lives ... So I guess, in theory, if the government was forcing someone to get an abortion, we may very well be against it, but really, we could care less about what someone does with their personal life

 

[Wroberson]

No. Some of them are flakes.

 

[rjay]

Harris said he believes Muslims’ loyalty to the U.S. is questionable because their ultimate loyalty is to the Quran and Islam, which he described as “more a fascist type of organization.”

.

I have often wondered about Christians too. Seems their ultimate loyalty is to Christ and the Bible.

 

[Intense]

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation. -James Madison

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

Government is neither God, nor Infallible.

 

[VolSmile]

I think that the ideals on which the Tea Party was founded are good ones. I am a strong supporter of capitalism and believe that free markets work. I also want minimal government. However, the more I read about the Tea Party the more I come to disagree with their stances. For instance, I do not understand the obsession with Islam. I have heard Tea Party supporters express concern about Muslims taking over the country or implementing Sharia Law in U.S. courts. This (in my opinion) is beyond silly. Muslims make up around 0.6% of the population of the United States. This is like believing that Buddhists are going to hijack the federal government. I'm not saying that there aren't Muslim extremists, but they are a minority of an already small population. Even internationally countries with theocratic governments based on Islam don't have the military strength to invade America and institute the feared worldwide caliphate. The irrational fear of Islam is not the only point on which I disagree with the Tea Party. I also have serious problems with how Tea Party supporters/members in Congress handled the debt ceiling issue. I should start by saying that I believe that the federal government needs to drastically reduce spending and become more fiscally responsible. Nevertheless the handling of the debt ceiling was irresponsible. The time to discuss spending and impose this type of discipline is when passing a budget. Suppose an individual is in a bad financial position. He has too much debt and spends a lot more money than he can really afford. The way to fix this is to start imposing discipline. Start spending less than and pay down your obligations over time. The answer is not to wake up one day and decide that you are going to stop paying your mortgage, credit card bills, etc. Raising the debt ceiling was a matter of paying for obligations that the government had already incurred (medicare payments, social security payments, debt interest/principal, military salaries, and such). These programs do need to be scaled back or cut, but again at the appropriate time (when spending outlays are made). In addition to these criticisms I have seen polls that indicate that many Tea Party supporters are in favor of Social Security, Medicare, substantial military benefits, and "putting God in government". Many of these positions stand in opposition to small government and constitutional limitations. Ultimately, my point is not to say that I disagree with everything that the Tea Party stands for or that all Tea Party supporters are nuts, though some surely are just as many democrats are. My point is that in 2009 when the movement was just starting I was excited thinking that there would be a strong demand for movement towards more libertarian policies in a responsible way. However over the years I have been disappointed as it seems that the Tea Party is becoming the Republican party on steroids instead of a real move towards more classical liberalism (before democrats hijacked the word) and smaller government.

 

[Billo_Really]

What's even worse is to be stupid enough to support obama, tea party crazy is a good thing, obama supporting is a stupid thing and to support something as stupid is that makes you crazier than any tea party member could ever be.

Do you know what's even more stupid than that?

It's a tea bagger who can't name 3 specific things about Obama that he/she opposes.

 

[whitehall]

Every time we see this kind of stuff it shows off the left wing ignorance.

 

[Zarius]

The tea party are nothing but a bunch of racist idiots, and Bachmann's latest stunt is doing just that to rally the racist vote.

This is the best post so far, Tea party people are the worst racist evil people