A follow up to an earlier post:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So this is what being interested in the deficit and cutting taxes looks like, eh? Seems to me more that the Tea Party is Christian Right politics with a thin Fiscal Conservative veneer:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/02/montana-bill-to-ban-all-local-lgbt_23.html

http://www.salon.com/news/islam/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/23/tennessee_islam_law_felony_bill

And can anyone answer me how this remotely is compatible with Lawrence v. Texas? I thought Tea Partiers were also about defending Law and Order and Society As It Is? To me, this is just one of many examples of how the "Tea Party" is nothing but a front for the religious politicians of the Republican Party. Oh, and as to the second article: how does making Shariah Law a felony reduce the deficit and shrink government? I thought Supply-Side was Voodoo Economics, this type of deficit reduction is even harder to understand.

But if we take Tea Partiers at their word, and they are nothing but honest and honorable people, they are always about the deficit. When it's:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters

This it's always about the deficit.

When it's advocating that President Obama is not a US citizen, it's always about the deficit, for Tea Partiers are nothing but honest and honorable people and when they say it's all about the deficit, surely we should believe such honest defenders of the US as it is, the Constitution as it was:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/26/83026/tea-party-birthers-movements-somewhat.html

http://teapartynationalism.com/the-blogbri-news-updates-and-morei/item/131-tea-party-nation-founder-declares-himself-a-birther

When it's condemning something their own children are involved as re-education camps, it's all about the deficit and reducing spending, for Tea Partiers are honorable and honest people, and they would never say anything but honest and honorable things:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele-bachmanns-son-joins-group-she-once-called-a-re-education-camp/

So yes, the Tea Party *is* all about the cutting the deficit and less spending, and somehow, in some way these brave champions of White League thuggishness freedom and justice for all will reduce the Federal budget to an entirely balanced and well-founded fiscal base, and belief that the President is not a citizen, that live ammo should be used on strikers, that Shariah law should be a felony, and eliminating all the progress (however slow and halting it's been) for LGBQTI individuals since the 1970s will make the US Budget balanced.

Oh, and it might good to remember who the father of the Tea Party's sugar daddies was:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30065386/Fred-C-Koch-Going-Off-On-A-Bircher-Rant-Newspaper-Clipping-1964

There is indeed nothing new under the Sun.

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

This it's always about the deficit.

It's more than a bit silly for elected officials to do nothing unless it has to do with the deficit.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's not when they cannot in fact admit that they're passing everything the Religious Right wants and that *everything* is deficit reduction.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

>> the Tea Party is Christian Right politics with a thin Fiscal Conservative veneer

And you find this surprising? :P The Tea Party is simply the 1994 Religious Right/Republican "revolution" dressed up in new clothes and slightly more racist.

Someone said in a previous post that, to certain people, it's only "big government" if it negatively affects rich, old, white people. I would add "conservative Christian" to that list, and change "affect" to "affect or simply piss off."

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Brb, must check if I've not suddenly mistakenly entered lj comm=librul_wank.

Um, strangely but nope.

Please proceed.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

By all means, help improve the ideological diversity of this post by explaining how picking on gay rights helps to balance the budget!

[dukexmachismo.livejournal.com]

No, that's the *other* community we're both in. ;)

[404.livejournal.com]

All I can say is at least you stuck to the 20th and 21st century in your post and analysis...

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

don't get him started...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Now that you've said this I'm tempted to do a post about the most obscure historical topics I can think of just to spite this comment.

[singlethink.livejournal.com]

Lawrence v. Texas has absolutely nothing to do with this unless Shariah law includes a healthy does of sodomy.

That being said, a statute that outlawed ritualistic pre-meal washing would be overturned in about 13.2 seconds. There are enough freedom of religion cases out there to provide sufficient precedent without having to make a stretch of a comparison to Lawrence.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I disagree, it would take about 12.6 seconds.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The key phrase you seem to have missed: Oh, and as to the second article: implying that I am not treating them as connected, merely in the same paragraph. Hence the colon, to separate the two.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Link #1 = Sorry can't review blogspot is blocked at work but a persons blog is hardly a solid reference

Link #2 = Failed to prove that this has any support from any member of the Tea Party. The term Tea Party was never mentioned in either the link


Link #3 = Failed to prove that this guy is even a member of the Tea Parties or that his views are representative of them. In fact once again the words "Tea Party" did not appear in the article. Further it was on his private twitter account where he expressed his personal opinion, he was not speaking in his official capacity as a state employee.


Link #4 = OMFG a link which actually uses the term "Tea Party" Unfortunately once again it fails to show what you claim it shows. See you think it says "All Tea Partiers are raving Birthers" when all it really says is "Birther sentiments are more common with those who generally agree with the Tea Parties". It also does not in any way say or imply that ANY actual Tea Party members consider the issue of where Obama was born tbe be of greater importance than the size and cost of government so you still fail.


Link #5 = Jesus Hallelujah you actually hit the mark. Here is a single actual Tea Party member who actually admits to holding birther views (but even he admits Obama was born in Hawaii) This still does not in any prove your point that The Tea Parties are not really concerned with economic issues and the size of the government because you do realize it is possible for people to believe the completely unrelated things at the same time right?

And sorry but I gotta cut it off right there as I have to run to a HOA meeting.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In other words "The Tea Party means only what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less and by God nothing consistent."

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I concur, this post is pretty weak sauce.

UL, I hope you are more stringent with your critical analysis of evidence when coming to the Historical conclusions that you're so certain about.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

There is indeed nothing new under the Sun.

As long as you keep looking through those filtered glasses, that is.

You need a better ConLaw outline

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Re: Your question about Lawrence: That case dealt with a criminal statute directed at certain acts, which were protected by the bedroom privacy found in prior cases (IIRC, which I probably don't, it was Casey that discovered the right to privacy in the bedroom). The Montana statute only appears to address special remedies available in civil cases to plaintiffs asserting discrimination by a private party.

So, the differences:
* Lawrence involved the government, this does not
* Lawrence involved criminal penalties, this does not
* Lawrence dealt with specific protected acts, not orientation

So, the two deal with totally different rights, existing in totally different scenarios, and ascribed to totally different parties. Or: It's totally different from Lawrence.

How does the second one have anything to do with the privacy rights in Lawrence? Or were you just directing the question to the first one?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Yeah it definitely wasn't Casey. But anyway, it was out there before Lawrence and was simply utilized by the court in that case.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

You baffle me. There are times when you can be reasonable, persuasive and intelligent.

Then there are times like this where you remind me too much of Glenn Beck.

And yes, I looked at the links, and to form the basis of your OP from those links to support it is nothing short of what I've seen from how Beck's brain assembles his ideas.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

All that he is missing is the chalkboard.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

We already argued about this weeks ago, dude:

Telling police to use live ammunition is a metaphor.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Oh, and the Tea Party can't have a vision or goal- this would preclude directions from up top. They just sort of sit in pissed-off land until they're needed for contingencies. Then they get their cause on the day it is needed. Then the cause is dropped depending upon the outcome. Then they go back to holding patterns until some Republican somewhere in the country needs some boosting. Then they go... etc. etc. etc.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it'd be less distracting if 'lankers would just use HTML tags to turn them into in-text links instead of putting in the full URL.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

The Tea party is a bunch of things...

But a big one is a tactic by which politicians supporting a typical Republican agenda can be elected in 2010 while at the same time distancing themselves from the party's well deserved stigma accrued from 2000 -> 2008.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

For some, sure. But I think its also fair to say a fair numbr of non-establishment types snuck in as well. We'll see what happens in the long run.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. I am relatively unimpressed so far, though not really surprised that things like the Patriot Act still got renewed, among other things.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You can only judge Tea Partiers by their actions.

People doing things don't matter so their alleged politicians have the floor here to define the movement.

So far it's been voting to keep the PATRIOT ACT. So what this tells me is that the Tea Party is all about giving up your privacy to the government.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

"Tea Party is Christian Right politics with a thin Fiscal Conservative veneer"


A perfect summary.