“People Like You” is the phrase one lady in the following video used to describe people who ask questions about their opinions. Apparently Tea Baggers do not like questions when it makes their views looks incorrect. A guy interviewed Beck Rally goers to know their views, here’s the reactions he got.
A verbal confrontation at the rally was caught on tape. This is the description of what happened, via Examiner,
A person interviewing an Indiana man dressed in colonial-era attire was confronted by members of the crowd who appeared to be upset with the questions being asked. During the short verbal skirmish that ensued, one man bullied the interviewer with support from a few onlookers, while others sought to diffuse the situation (see video). Ultimately, things cooled down and the incident ended peacefully.
Ironic how the people who show up to these rallies only care about people’s Constitutional Rights when it agrees with their biased opinions.
The complete lack of comprehension and irony in their views is funny at times, but very sad. They fail to see the irony in supporting a republican that did the same things they are now attacking Pres. Obama for. They constantly accuse liberals of not supporting the Constitution but they attack others for expressing their Constitutional rights. Bottom line, if the Tea Partiers don’t like it, then it’s wrong. If you do everything Tea Partiers want you to do then you’re a Real American.
I am one of those “tea baggers” minus one thing, I’m a libertarian-esk conservative political atheist, not a republican. I think many leftist and to be perfectly honesty, semi-lame brained republican drones (i.e. Glenn Beck viewers) have been duped into thinking that the tea party express is a true change based group. WRONG! Libertarians and Ron Paul revolutionaries were the progenitors of the whole movement, which has sense been co-opted by Sarah Palin and the other Republican goons as well as the tea party express.
The tea party express is a joke, the tea party federation(a collection of local and state tea party organizations) booted the tea party express out. They said the tea party express was just trying to co-opt real change based groups, and its true goal was to get votes for the republican ticket.
The core groups of tea parties are constructed of probably 50 percent libertarians and independents, 30 percent angry republicans that usually become independents eventually and then about 20 percent democrats and liberals who are legitimately angry as well, many of which switch to independent also.
The point is, don’t think of tea parties as the tea party express, we are not, the core true tea parties are people who want real change and are not looking for it in the republican party as it is today.
PS oh ya and those idiots in the video are falling big time for the left right paradigm and probably voted for bush and love the patriot act, complete sheep.
second PS the best way to get health care to the masses without fining people is to let the free market work while trimming down on insurance companies denying claims as well as denying new customers because of prior conditions. I know its not ideal but you cannot unconstitutionally force people into health care seeing as the 11th amendment only allows congress to regulate commerce between states and no where mentions congress being allowed to force people to partake in commerce.
actually, you’re right not to basically group all tea partiers together. I’ve heard from decent tea partiers who were able to articulate and argue their views very well. But, those tea partiers are few.
I think free market can compete with the government. Many companies have a monopoly in states and they take advantage of that. I’m all for free market but I’m more for the spirit of what free market represents and competition is at the heart of that. Last time I checked nobody is forced to do anything, you can keep your employer or private insurance.
One thing I think the media lost on this whole Glenn Beck thing was how is him giving his speech on the same location that MLK gave his I Have a Dream speech different from the Park51 discussion?
The timing and place are secondary issues to me on both topics, the message from Beck is the problem for me.
I think there is an attitude of irreverence. Glenn Beck daily talks about how “tea partiers” need to absorb the civil rights movement and adopt it as part of the “tea party” again its not only completely disrespectful, it is entirely diluting the beginning arguments of true “tea baggers” as we have been lovingly called.
I agree, I really don’t care if her gave his speech the same place as MLK. The issue is his egotistical views and actions.
Beck is neither a Klansmen nor a white supremacist. He has also not tried to violate civil rights or kill anyone. And he certainly never tried to harm MLK.
That’s why the Cordoba House/Park51 discussion does not compare to this.
Or are you insinuating that a white man cannot encourage faith, hope, charity, liberty, and a return to God at the same place and day a black reverend once preached?
Eh, unimpressed.
If these are the best examples people can come up with for the evil “tea baggers”…
Eh.
who said they were evil?
Anti-American, hypocritical, close-minded, attacking others for exercising their civil rights, bigoted, tunnel visioned…
Holding a predominantly white rally on the same day and at the same place as when MLK gave his “I have a dream…” speech. (How dare they?)
No, not evil. They are just made to sound like they are without actually using the word.
And who is trying to make them sound that way? The entire political Left, including Al Sharpton and his cronies.
yeah…classic line from a conservative however just to note calling someone close-minded after that statement makes you hypocritical
seeing as how I didn’t even bother to mention race in the post. Kind of proves you wrong as you’re the first one to make a big deal about it. Oh and we don’t think they’re evil, we just think their views and explanations of said views are moronic
Obviously my point went over your head.
Those descriptives were what I gleaned from posts like this one and others of the liberal bent.
For example, from this particular blog post alone:
Hypocritical
Close-minded
Attacking others for exercising their civil rights
Bigoted
There were tens of thousands of people at this rally. And a handful were possibly being ignorant.
And you determined all these fabulous descriptions of the tea party movement from these few selections of videos of the rally.
I’d snort if it weren’t so unladylike.
lol none of those lines prove your point, but thanks for relaying them again. And to make clear I’m not attacking Tea baggers for exercising their rights. They can protest whatever they want, just a symbol of how free we are compared to other countries.
Lets get this right, so when Conservatives blatantly start attacking a Muslim Community Center for being two blocks away from ground zero, that’s not attacking them for their constitutional rights?
It’s one thing to argue against an opinion, but Tea Partiers clearly go beyond that point.
I have been following the Tea Party since it started and longer than you’ve been blogging, pretty sure I’m comfortable in making these assertions.
You can snort all you want, I’ve taken etiquette classes at a young age, we were taught snorting was unladylike. But you have a right to snort and I wouldn’t attack you for it
Again, it went over your head. You asked “who said they are evil?”
I replied with a list of descriptives that could very much substitute for the word “evil”.
In other words, the answer to your question is: you and other leftists who similarly slander the tea party movement.
My length of time blogging at WordPress is irrelevant to this discussion, especially since I have been a tea partier since the bail-out nearly two years ago.
And I wish you would give me an example of conservatives attacking a radical imam and his cronies for trying to build a symbol-of-conquest at the site of the worst jihad attack on the West since the Muslims attacked the newly declared state of Israel in 1948. Protesting against it and seeking every LEGAL means necessary to prevent it from being built at that location is not a violation of the First Amendment.
What exactly have conservatives done to VIOLATE Muslims’ constitutional rights?
it’s their right to build there. Whatever conspiracy theory you think about the owners is useless. Nuff said.
There is nothing theoretical about the things this imam has said and written.
Hey Sensico….. I have been in “blog silence mode” for about a month – and it is refreshing to come back and see some good discussion going on. I have been toying writing a similar article to this…. you beat me to it.
A couple of quick responses:
– The location and timing of Beck’s rally is a big deal to me because symbols have power – and Beck is intentionally invoking MLK as a symbol. How amazingly arrogant! How do people continue to fall for this guy?
– flouridematt: A agree with you that the tea party movement has been infiltrated by the crazies. Arguments about big government versus small government are a legitimate point of discussion. Unfortunately, the tea parties have been slow to purge the crazies from their ranks.
– Nattasia: I don’t think it is all hypocritical for liberals to point out the conservative tendency to selectively apply constitutional rights. You can make an argument that liberals do it too – but remember also that we don’t espouse constitutional fundamentalism as a part of our political platform. We take a “living document” approach compared to the conservative “strict constructionist” approach. If you are a strict constructionist you are indeed hypocritical to selectively apply constitutional rights.
– hp
Glad to see you back, happy you didn’t beat me to this post lol
what’s funny in your point to flouridematt is that I would assume most Americans would generally agree with the idea of less government. The message just becomes irrelevant when you have tea baggers being extreme or taking the idea of small government to an unnecessary extreme. Not everything is black or white.
your point to Natassia was dead on. You said it best!
Lord have mercy, reading comprehension is not a strong point at this blog.
I never called liberals hypocrites. I was simply pointing out that liberals make generalized statements that Tea Partiers are hypocrites and a slew of other invectives.
And what the heck is “constitutional fundamentalism”? And it surely doesn’t sound like a negative thing, so why are you touting it as such?
And yes, we conservatives know all about your liberal “living document” approach to the Constitution. This is a very convenient approach because it means that the law means whatever you want it to mean. However, this can and will backfire when people whose world views you don’t agree with are appointed as judges and elected as representatives.
Natassia said: Lord have mercy, reading comprehension is not a strong point at this blog.
You know, I generally try to avoid ad hominem in my blogging – but when it is thrown at me I will sometimes respond in kind. I would suggest the problem is not with reading comprehension but with a lack of clarity in the writing.
To answer your question – what is Constitutional Fundamentalism? It is a view, prominent in conservative circles, that the founders/framers possessed some god-like wisdom and produced a perfect document – unassailable in any way. Apparently those framers/founders represent the highest standard of wisdom – and no subsequent scholar has any intellectual right to question their wisdom.
Yes – I think that is a very bad and very dangerous thing. The constitution is indeed a wonderful document – but it was written by mere human beings – human beings who could not have possibly foreseen the events that have subsequently transpired.
Ad hominem only applies if I am trying to prove a point.
I wasn’t trying to prove anything with my observation because it was just an OBSERVATION.
And regarding your clarity comment, unless you were automatically assuming that I was simply spouting out insults (for which you have no evidence that this would be in my character to do) wouldn’t it make sense that I was answering the question of the last comment directed at me?
And regarding your constitutional fundamentalism comment, after looking it up, I came across this definition:
Well, of course liberals/progressives would abhor such a thing. It establishes an absolute truth in regards to the law. God forbid there be any absolutes, you know.
Imagine if “thou shalt not steal” actually meant thou shalt not steal?! I’ve always thought there was significant symbolism behind the Ten Commandments being etched IN STONE.
And perhaps the fact that we have a WRITTEN Constitution rather than an “unwritten” one like Israel or Great Britain, is why we’ve been able to withstand so many attempts to change our country’s principles and standards in regards to personal liberty and the role of government.
That’s what the amendment process is for. The fact that liberals can’t get the amendments they want and so they seek to deliberately misinterpet the law is telling indeed.
Natassia said: Well, of course liberals/progressives would abhor such a thing. It establishes an absolute truth in regards to the law. God forbid there be any absolutes, you know.
I can’t speak for all liberals/progs – but for me the issue isn’t whether there are absolute truths but whether we, as mere mortals, can grasp those truths. I indeed believe there are objective truths out there – but I have less confidence in my ability (or anyone’s ability) to know those truths with absolute certainty. It is a problem of epistemology rather than ontology.
Conservatives seem to have a bit less skepticism – they think themselves quite capable of grasping those fundamental truths. It must me nice – uncertainty can be disconcerting.
That’s what the amendment process is for. The fact that liberals can’t get the amendments they want and so they seek to deliberately misinterpet the law is telling indeed.
I realize that is what the amendment process if for… though the bar is set so high that the amending the constitution is virtually impossible anymore – particularly in a politically charged environment in which our representatives (on both sides of the aisle) play politics at the expense of the good of the country.
I am curious about how liberals are deliberately misinterpreting the law, however. Please – do tell….
As someone who lives in DC and has had to interact numerous times with many, many tea baggers, I have to say I loathe them. They almost always treat me and my co-workers like shit and they are very arrogant with us. The funniest part about this is supposedly I’m the type of person they love: a combat veteran. However, they have called me un-American, unpatriotic, and a Nazi. This despite the fact that I wear my military insignia’s on my work blazer in the hopes that people won’t say the stupid things they usually end up saying.