In this case, the loudest of the loud is the Tea Party.
Yeah, free speech and democracy r good.
plainoldme wrote:SO WHAT ??
The 25 October 2010 edition of Newsweek features a well-written and well-reasoned analysis of this phenomenon
which has been compared to the old John Birch Society (where is the Chad Mitchell Trio when we really need it?).
The JBS had their hearts in the right
and thay did no harm. Thay called attention to a serious problem.
I read the article yesterday and suggested to several people that they should expect
the magazine's editorial offices to be firebombed.
Tea Partyers r NOT Moslems.
Two of my listeners said they expect violence in the streets because of the Tea Totalitarians [Note the horribly anti-logical misnomer, in that thay OPPOSE domestic government power; thay don't promote it!!!] (afterwards referred to as the TTs).
On the other hand, IF
the Tea Partiers supporters advocated LIBERALISM
thay coud be accused of desires toward totalitarianism, because liberals of the left
wish government to have MORE
domestic jurisdiction. LIberals r bad
plainoldme wrote: YES
The TTs claim to be originalists in regard to the Constitution
. That 's the idea.
Fight against the degeneracy of liberalism.
but Newsweek compares this loosely defined group with famous originalists
like Barbara Jordan and Abraham Lincoln for whom their stance on the document was "an integrative force."
U r simply supposed to apply the Constitution like a ROAD MAP
and do what it says; period. Whether it is "an integrative force" or not means nothing.
The Newsweek writers see the TTs as coming from "a tradition of divisive fundamentalism
(emphasis mine as it will be throughtout)."
I 'll buy that. It is political fundamentalism
that divides the decent people from the liberals.
Unable to either cope with or accept contemporary society, their refuge is "authoritarian scripture and the imagined past it supposedly represents." For the TT, the Constitution confirms their "preexisting beliefs."
The Constitution is LIBERTARIAN scripture
; that 's Y liberals hate it so much.
It interferes with collectivism and with authoritarianism.
The American Revolution was LIBERTARIAN
a product of the Sons of LIberty
There have been other movements of this type:
The American Liberty League of the 1930s and, in the 1960s, the above mentioned JBS.
JBS was strictly anti
That 's all. I guess u don 't know that.
More recently, something called the Constitution Party sprang up in 1992 (Hmm, is there a 30 year cycle to this sort of radical right activism?) with sharron angle as a member. These people saw the Bible as the basis of AMerican jurisprudence.
It is not.
No wonder christine o'donnell had no idea that there is a legal separation of church and state. angle herself sees that tenet of law, that founding assumption so close to the hearts of the FFs as unconstitutional. palin preaches that rights are God-given. (Poor God! He gets blamed for everything!)
R u just hurling personal insults ?
The Newsweek piece acknowledges that the Constitution is remarkable but goes on to as which Constitution should be revered as the writer(s) see several Constitutions have emerged over time. (I have long said that technology has a push-pull effect on society and ethics . . . several of our most vocal contributors to these boards disagree.)
The article concludes with a call for debate which the writers imply the TT does not brook.
Thay r debaters!