Hilarious Tea Party smackdown

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
The Tea Party is a joke.


In theory, it stands for traditional virtues and against unchecked government.


In practice, it elevates absurd charlatans that even GOP primary voters reject.


In The Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti explains his notion of the values held dear by the typical "Tea Party voter".


The core of his argument?


"Limited government is surely an important feature of the Tea Party, but it is an idea that encompasses far more than economics. Limited government presupposes self-government, which presupposes a citizenry that possesses virtue and good character. When Tea Partiers recall the Founders, they summon images of wise and reflective men who instituted constitutional government to protect the liberties of the people against overweening factions. But they also summon images of an earlier age in which (they believe) virtues such as thrift, self-reliance, fidelity, piety, industry, and responsibility were valued...


What motivates the Tea Party is... a feeling that America has come unmoored... Self-reliant, frugal, industrious America could be turned... into a dependent, cynical, spendthrift, licentious America."

https://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/movement-explained_634410.html?page=1



Put that way, the Tea Party sounds indisputably sensible.



Who'd argue against wisdom, reflectiveness, thrift, self-reliance, fidelity, piety, industry, responsibility, frugality, or industriousness?



Do the politicians that the Tea Party elevates embody those qualities more than the various Republicans and Democrats who aren't affiliated with the Tea Party movement?



They do not.



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ty-movement/255530/?google_editors_picks=true
 
A post both great and true. teabaggers obviously don't have shit for common sense. I would say something less than shit.
 
Says Continetti, "The Tea Party's moral vision... explains why it has been reluctant to embrace Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy."


He conveniently skips over naming the succession of candidates that the Tea Party has embraced.


There is Sarah Palin, the unreflective Alaska governor who blew $150,000 on clothing during her VP run, quit her post in the middle of her term to become a reality television star, and isn't anyone's idea of reflective.


There is Newt Gingrich, for whom thrift, responsibility, and frugality are not strong suits.


Herman Cain stumbled on fidelity, while Rick Perry's support would seem to cast doubt on Continetti's assertion that Tea Partiers insist "the business of government is not to help anyone's profit margin."


Perhaps the Tea Party doesn't actually subscribe to the values that Continetti says.


Or perhaps its adherents do, but tend to elevate politicians bereft of those qualities.


Does it matter?


Neither Mitch Daniels nor Jon Huntsman nor Tim Pawlenty nor Gary Johnson are perfect candidates, but the average Tea Partier prefers Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Donald Trump..




http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ty-movement/255530/?google_editors_picks=true
 
\\(())// said:
Note: SmarterThanFew denies being rightwing. He's said that he's a r-e-t-a-r-d-L-i-ber-t-a-r-i-a-n, whatever that is.
Click to expand...

Seems lately I've run into a lot of r-e-t-a-r-d-L-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n-s, whatever they may actually be other than plain stupid.
 
Gatorman said:
Seems lately I've run into a lot of r-e-t-a-r-d-L-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n-s, whatever they may actually be other than plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Let's revisit the wealth of knowledge brought to us by an esteemed expert on the Founding Fathers and other patriot history:

 
Another Teatard, before a righties accuses us of sexism:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top