"Let"?
Is it the general consensus here at the "James Randi Educational Foundation - a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" that the "Tea Party" is a bad thing?
If so, why is that?
[/B]."
(I had here included the wiki link for this "Tea Party movement" quote, but apparently I am not yet able to do so.)
What is objectionable in those bolded principles and ideals?
Do the "skeptics and critical thinkers" of JREF, to the contrary then, generally favor increased government spending, higher taxes, increase of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and opposition to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution?
Is the obvious general antipathy, disdain and contempt so loudly voiced for the "Tea Party" here at JREF because they are generally taken to be of a conservative/libertarian perspective and therefore must be attacked as the opposition to the Democratic Party?
Are the "skeptical critical-thinkers" here mostly loyal Democrats?
Because the Tea Party as it exists currently is not a grass roots organization - though it stole/co-opted one's that were just local butt hole conservatives after kicking out those who were reasonable consies.
Sal Russo (with Dick (quite appropriate) Army's nut group help) is the guy who got Republicker/ conservative funding to create the T.P. Express which became a conservative terror group bussing tea-baggers and paid agitators to go to and disrupt town meetings and similar.
May not be why others find them to be slime. Is why I do - and why they will never be anything but tea baggers to me.
Last edited: