- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 11,062
- Reaction score
- 2,668
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_el_ho/us_gop_tea_party
Okay, so I was reading this a few minutes ago, and here's my God's honest question.
I want to know the logic here. The people I know personally who are now Tea Party supporters are also people who used to give me shit for having the nerve to say the President shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. I was told it was "unpatriotic" for me to have the nerve to speak out against the fairly elected president. Maybe it's just the people I know (I'm from Texas), but I want to know how on earth it's now considered acceptable for a candidate to run for office on vows of dismantling branches of the federal government?
The Tea Party members are the same ones saying we're being pushed to socialism and arguing that the Constitution is the end all, etc. Am I right? Because that's sure how it seems to me. So how is it that they are now actually backing a candidate who says essentially that the Constitution is wrong?
See, to me this reads as a case of "It's okay for me to do it but not okay for you to." But what makes it worse is that the "crimes" against the Constitution and the calls of being unpatriotic that I've heard for ages and the ones that are going on now seem so absolutely minor compared to things like this.
I don't get it. Really, I don't.
Okay, so I was reading this a few minutes ago, and here's my God's honest question.
I want to know the logic here. The people I know personally who are now Tea Party supporters are also people who used to give me shit for having the nerve to say the President shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. I was told it was "unpatriotic" for me to have the nerve to speak out against the fairly elected president. Maybe it's just the people I know (I'm from Texas), but I want to know how on earth it's now considered acceptable for a candidate to run for office on vows of dismantling branches of the federal government?
The Tea Party members are the same ones saying we're being pushed to socialism and arguing that the Constitution is the end all, etc. Am I right? Because that's sure how it seems to me. So how is it that they are now actually backing a candidate who says essentially that the Constitution is wrong?
See, to me this reads as a case of "It's okay for me to do it but not okay for you to." But what makes it worse is that the "crimes" against the Constitution and the calls of being unpatriotic that I've heard for ages and the ones that are going on now seem so absolutely minor compared to things like this.
I don't get it. Really, I don't.