Just one of a number of little things I've noticed about the Tea-baggers I've talked to

[ThomWV]

Without exception the Tea-baggers I've talked to considered themselves to be experts on the Constitution and I've also noticed that they mention "The Federalist Papers" almost as if they were more familiar with the arguments presented therein than passages in the family Bible. But the thing is that they don't seem to be able to discuss the document at any level. For instance, if you ask one of them if they think there might be any significance in the order in which the Articles are presented. Its almost as if they want to use the document as if it were a religious tome where they can extract little snippets to use to their own advantage, and are confused that none exist.

The situation is furthered by this; and to me its one of the damnedest things, they all seem to be "originalists". I say that in the sense that they believe that the Constitution should always be interpreted in light of the language, usage and meaning, of the time it was written; the arguments of the time endure the ages in their view. That said these very same people are generally incapable of making a cogent argument in today's english even in defense of their most precious document. Oh, and I haven't run across one yet who could make a connection between the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, how the latter is a continuation of the former, or one who could comment at all on the influence of Locke or Hobbs on either document.

It is just astounding how ignorance can be so sure of itself.

[JuniperLea]

1. I love quotes from Bertrand Russell...

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. - Bertrand Russell

[crazylikafox]

4. +1

[Drale]

2. Tea baggers

think they are Superior in every way to us "socialist communist fag lovers", when the fact is the complete opposite. The tea baggers I have talked to usually did not do well in school, are not really qualified for any of the work they do and are the most arrogant self important SOB's ever.

[grilled onions]

3. SO True

In high school we had to pass a Constitution Test and there were five versions and you never knew which version you might get stuck with. But even with the easiest version I doubt many Tea Baggers could pass it.

[oldlib]

5. Have you found

that Tea-baggers are right wing nuts who are finally suffering the effects of the poor economy?

[librechik]

6. They should be called cherry pickers

the way they ignore parts of this and parts of that in order to throw the bits they agree with at us like 500 pound boulders. They are illogical and can't carry on a debate londer than they say something then you start to say something that sounds like something they don't agree with. Boom! Debate over and you're under the rock.

[RagAss]

7. I cover this topic in my latest book "The Cretins Next Door"....now in paperback.

[Dappleganger]

8. What they don't get is that the Constitution has been subject to interpretation

of one persuasion or the other from the very beginning. They would probably be quite shocked to go back a couple hundred years to see just how "perfect" it was even then.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

9. Three words: Marbury versus Madison. 1803.

Supreme Court case promulgating "judicial review". This was an election contest.

Judicial review means that case law can overrule and overturn statute law. This has been precedent since 1803. So their "originalist" arguments won't wash. Case law overturns statute law because the world is changing. It has been that way since 1803.

They can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want to, but eventually they will be overruled. Like gay marriage. They cannot stop it, due to the full faith and credit clause, and the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Hit them with Marbury v. Madison.

[JVS]

10. Well that's what happens when you apply fundamentalist exegesis to political documents.

[gratuitous]

11. It's a continuation of a literalist reading of the Bible

When you reduce a thoughtful, nuanced passage to a black-and-white caricature, it's so much easier to handle and define. Tea Baggers like their biblical exegesis real simple, confined to the interpretation as received from some authority figure. Placing things in a context or in juxtaposition to other things confuses and frightens them. The only "originalist" feature to their political philosophy is the notion that whoever got to them originally gets pride of place in how they treat a subject.

For a whole lot of fun (if you have the time), ask them who wrote the Federalist Papers, and when. Did the Federalist Papers precede the writing of the Constitution? Or come afterwards? If the Constitution is some kind of infallible document like a papal bull, why does it need so many amendments? And could they please point out the section in the Constitution that grants to the Judiciary the right to review the work of the Legislature for adherence to the Constitution?

Then stand back; you don't want to get any on you when their little pea brains overload.