Dear Tea Party People,
I have to write you a letter of concern at this point. You see, I have heard many of you talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, limited government and original-intent constitutionalism. But I have a few questions:
1. (and most importantly) Where were you guys for the 8 years that George Bush and the Republicans were in office? Those dudes spent a ton of money on big government stuff (see No Child Left behind), passed big government legislation (see The Patriot Act), encroached on our personal rights (see The Patriot Act again), expanded the reach of government and government run programs (see Medicare and once again The Patriot Act), and did things that were completely outside the confines of original-intent Constitutional interpretation (see...dare I say it...both Wars. Since Article 1 Section 8 Line 11ish says Congress not the President has the power to declare war and Congress does not have the power to give The President the power to declare it. Go read up on some Jefferson to see what he thought about the power of one man to send a nation to war.). Why was there no Tea Party for this?
2. Why did most of you mock and scorn us for voting for Ron Paul only to start preaching his message a few months later?
3. (ok...it's just me re-stating #1) Why is it only now that a Democrat is in office that these things became important to you?
I bring these up out of concern that you may have not thoroughly vetted your cause. Sometimes you seem a little disingenuous. And until these critical points are addressed, with some seriousness, it is going to be hard for me to take you seriously. Also, a little civility would go a long way. If you believe so much in the ideas of the founding fathers, it may do you a little good to study their style of debating and discourse. It might actually get you some new followers. Well, that's all for now. Good night and good luck.
-scott
I have to write you a letter of concern at this point. You see, I have heard many of you talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, limited government and original-intent constitutionalism. But I have a few questions:
1. (and most importantly) Where were you guys for the 8 years that George Bush and the Republicans were in office? Those dudes spent a ton of money on big government stuff (see No Child Left behind), passed big government legislation (see The Patriot Act), encroached on our personal rights (see The Patriot Act again), expanded the reach of government and government run programs (see Medicare and once again The Patriot Act), and did things that were completely outside the confines of original-intent Constitutional interpretation (see...dare I say it...both Wars. Since Article 1 Section 8 Line 11ish says Congress not the President has the power to declare war and Congress does not have the power to give The President the power to declare it. Go read up on some Jefferson to see what he thought about the power of one man to send a nation to war.). Why was there no Tea Party for this?
2. Why did most of you mock and scorn us for voting for Ron Paul only to start preaching his message a few months later?
3. (ok...it's just me re-stating #1) Why is it only now that a Democrat is in office that these things became important to you?
I bring these up out of concern that you may have not thoroughly vetted your cause. Sometimes you seem a little disingenuous. And until these critical points are addressed, with some seriousness, it is going to be hard for me to take you seriously. Also, a little civility would go a long way. If you believe so much in the ideas of the founding fathers, it may do you a little good to study their style of debating and discourse. It might actually get you some new followers. Well, that's all for now. Good night and good luck.
-scott
5 comments:
1. 9/11!
2. because we're like libertarians, but not!
3. black + smart = uppity!
Lots of retractions around the empty pantry as of late, but I strive to keep a clean conscious. So I would like to re-answer your response with a little more civility. Especially since the general lack thereof is one of the primary causes for my original post.
1. It seems a little disingenuous to have such strong ideals that you would march on Washington, but the second we are attacked you would be ok with overlooking those same ideals. Don't you see the problem with that? Isn't that a little hypocritical? Essentially you are saying that if there is an emergency then it's ok to suspend all our personal rights. If you agree with this statement then we have to address the nature of an emergency. Since the constitution doesn't define the nature of an emergency it would be up to the very government you are resisting to define it. Therefore, making it anything the sitting president/congress sees as such. If this is the case, then it could be said that we had a healthcare emergency and the government had to act because it was an emergency. Now, I don't suspect that you agree with that. Nor do I. But you can't allow one President to pull the "emergency" card at will just because you agree with him or the "emergency".
It is normally the case that in face of national emergenies that our personal rights treaded on the most. That is why things like the Patriot Act are wrong. It is an act that treaded all over our Constitutional Rights but it was put in place by a President/Congress during a time of crisis so most people overlooked it. But the document itself gives the President/Congress more power to impede on our rights at anything they call an emergency. Certainly 9-11 was a National Emergency. But if during an emergency we loose our sense of National self and allow the powers-that-be to "run amuck" we will end up with no rights at all. And that isn't what any of us want. So if you are going to stand up against big government and rally for our civil rights, then do it in all circumstances. Not just when it's conveniant.
2. Ron Paul wasn't running as a libertarian. So I don't really know how to answer this. If you could expand your answer a little more I'd apprecaite it.
3. WTF??? (yea, I don't really know how else to answer this?)
I tried to respond civilly...well...except for #3 because I'm not sure that there's another way to answer it. But I did find it a little disheartening to read a response that was little more than sloganeering. So if you are still reading this I would like to keep this discourse going. Please...respond again and I might find that I agree with some of what you are saying. But it's so hard to glean truth from proverbial bumper stickers.
1. I think it's patently disingenuous to fuse Neo-Evangelicalism to a Constitutionalist ethos, but I suppose it's de rigeur for wayward religious conservatives.
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWgO__RG3M4
3. LOL!!!
1. I don't quite know how to respond to this. I'm neither Evangelical (in the contemporary definition anyways) nor religious Conservative. At least not anymore. So I think I'm going to respond with...yea...I agree with you.
2. Yea...I was a Paul-ite. Not so much anymore though. What I was referring to are the many people who said I was crazy for supporting Paul's ideals but now spout those same ideals.
3. LOLLERSKATEz!1!1
Post a Comment