Tags
Okay, I confess. I don’t understand the TeaPotters. It’s not for lack of trying. I truly have tried.
What the problem seems to be, is that in order to understand them, you have to forget a whole lot of stuff you know. Like facts about history, your basic understanding of the constitution, things like that. It helps if you are fairly uninformed about science too.
Wikipedia defines them thusly:
the Tea Party movement tends to be anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, anti-tax, nationalistic, in favor of strict immigration legislation[26] and against compromise politics. Since the 2012 elections, many local Tea Party factions have shifted their focus to state nullification of the health care law, and protesting the United Nations Agenda 21.[27][28][29][30][31][32] The Tea Party is skeptical towards the courts, shows a commitment to individualism and takes an originalist view in constitutional interpretation. [33] The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts, stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. It is also in favor of amending the Constitution to grant states the right to veto
federal laws. It is known as the Repeal Amendment.[34]
Read that part again. They are generally in favor of an originalist” view of the constitution. Now I know a few teapotters myself, and I am categorically sure that they wouldn’t have a clue about what originalist even means, let alone how it might apply to the constitution. That is defined as one of two things, “original intent” or “original meaning”. That would require at minimum a thorough knowledge of the Federalist Papers. Again, the teapotters I know haven’t read that collection EVER.
But here’s what really strikes me as hysterical. In the same breath that they tell you that the constitution is the most important document (next to the Bible of course) ever created by mortal and or immortal hands, they are, as stated above, not so sure we shouldn’t repeal the 16th and 17th and then add an amendment of two. So this perfect document ain’t so perfect after all.
And don’t forget the 14th Amendment which Teapotters don’t like because of that Section 1 giving citizenship to all those born within its confines. (read anchor babies!!)
See, that’s the crazy logic merry-go-round one is forced to ride upon if one wishes to “understand” the average teapotter.
I think what they mean, and it’s only a guess since trying to figure out the logic behind a teapotters beliefs is a bit like trying to find a tiny white pearl in a ton of newly fallen snow, is that they like the Constitution, except some of those amendments. Some is the operative word here since the one they embrace with both of their beer-huggin’ arms is the 2nd.
Now the 2nd has many scholarly definitions, but to a teapotter it’s real simple: I can buy all the sexy sounding, and biggest killin’ machine guns that are marketed and go to war against the Feds should they “tread on me”. The usual teapotter has watched a tad too many John Wayne movies in his white privileged life, and is darn certain that an armed march on Washington is just what the country needs.
The 1st Amendment is okay as far as it goes. I mean THEY have a right to say what they wish, but Muslims?–well not so sure about them. And that part about separation of church and state, well that don’t mean good Christians should be hampered in their right to display their version of God in every public place–all others are lucky that they can practice their versions behind closed doors–and that’s somewhat iffy too.
If they argue that the Constitution broadly protects a persons right to be left alone, they see that as selective as well. Women have no rights to be left alone when it comes to their reproductive body parts. White men have always known better where that’s concerned. After all, it’s their responsibility to ensure the survival of the white race.
Gays have all the rights in the world as long as they do things heterosexually. Anything else is against God’s wishes as they see it, though they aren’t too sure why God created gays anyway. Most assume gays are just willful and stubborn adherents to a lifestyle they find more “fun” than hetero life. One is never quite sure whether they are complaining or not.
Blacks (who are never called African-American) could be just as good as white people if they would only act more white. Just try harder!
Most teapotters are happy to tell you just how hard they have had to work for EVERYTHING they have, and boy you should be impressed by their sacrifices. What is left unsaid of course, is that they feel cheated by their country because as they walk down that last bit of road to the pearly gates, they definitely aren’t living the life they feel entitled to.
That of course is due to the feds who take all their money in taxes and give it to the “lazies” the “takers” the 47%’ers, and other such names. Since they are not deemed worthy of respect, they aren’t really entitled to any of the constitutional things any way.
Mostly it comes down to as best I can tell is this: Teapotters want the country run by white people and they don’t want to pay for anything beyond a big old military. The Constitution was written by them, for them, and about them. It doesn’t really apply to anyone else. Anyone getting in the way of “their way of life” is to be declared an “illegal” “enemy combatant” or some other such “backward, heathen reprobate” and dealt with by means that Jack Bauer would approve of.
PS: If you are not white, male and Christian, you can of course be left fairly alone as long as you act white, male and Christian.
The TEA PARTY: brought to you by free market big business. You fell for that one too teapotters.
Solution to the teapotter problem: send them all back to high school and start all over again.
Existential Ennui 