i was speaking to you - you referred to tea partiers as "children"
No, I didn't. Your reading comprehension is deteriorating, too.
not necessary and derogatory - not "you're a cunt" derogatory but your version
"Not necessary"? This from a guy who writes posts with better than 90% of their content personal and off-topic?
Illustrations are always necessary when people ignore facts. Of course they're wasted on people who don't grasp basic English grammar.
my only point is that dismissing the Tea Party is a huge mistake - while there are members who are like with any "club"
fringe and loony
Do you pay attention to the House of Representatives at all????! There's nothing but "fringe and loony" with the Tea Party folks there. They don't understand economics, they don't understand the Founding Fathers, they don't understand liberty, they don't understand government, they don't understand common sense, even -- no one who had any common sense would tell a family with budget troubles to cut its income, which is what they're doing.
the idea of limited govt. is good - you should know
A very tight parallel: the idea of a limited military is also good. Would you recommend reducing it even further when an enemy was steadily taking over the country?
the idea of allowing people to work, create, earn and keep wages - is good
The Tea Party types have done nothing to advance that. What they have done is to follow a narrow ideological agenda that will make jobs even harder to find, businesses harder to start, wages less sufficient to meet basic needs.
I know the theory -- I could recite it for hours, because I used to argue it for hours. But it ignores one basic thing: government is not the only enemy of liberty.
People who really believed in liberty right now would have enthusiastically supported legislation breaking all the banks and similar institutions that got us into the financial mess into at least fifty pieces each. People who really believed in liberty wouldn't be supporting an economic structure that can be accurately described as "trickle-up", where the poor pay more and otherwise get penalized just for being poor, where the super-wealthy suck up unearned income, gaining more in a year without lifting a hand than an ordinary person could earn in a lifetime.
They talk about returning to the beliefs of the Founders. Well, here's one for them: take the Coast Guard and other protection services away from all ports, and let the rich pay for those things out of their own pockets. That's how forts and harbor patrols were run in colonial days: those with the money to provide such things paid for them, not the government. And they understood that doing so was beneficial to them, because it increased commerce by making it safer for all the others who used the harbor but couldn't afford to help build a fort.
Today's wealthy want everyone but them to pay, and the Tea Party supports them by favoring legislation which would shift ever more of the tax burden to the bottom of the economic ladder. They favor programs which would benefit me by nothing at all, but benefit George Soros by many millions a year.
The problem at hand is getting rid of the national debt. The record of the Tea Party in Congress is that they don't care about the debt, just about their simplistic ideological fixation.
And that's why my illustration: They're like little kids doing almost unrecognizable fingerpaintings of a house and proudly announcing they've made a home to live in -- their ideas are two-dimensional and sloppy, when something substantive and in three dimensions is needed.
I used to think a Congress full of lawyers was the worst possible thing -- but the Tea Party Republicans have shown that idea wrong.
