Or are they teenage boys raging with hormones, like E.J. Dionne, that are willing to say anything to get into some panties? (with shows like Glee out there I'll throw libs a bone and not assign any pronouns to said panties)
...our friends in the Tea Party have offered a helpful clue by naming their movement in honor of the 1773 revolt against tea taxes on that momentous night in Boston Harbor.
Whether they intend it or not, their name suggests they believe that the current elected government in Washington is as illegitimate as was a distant, unelected monarchy. It implies something fundamentally wrong with taxes themselves or, at the least, that current levels of taxation (the lowest in decades) are dangerously oppressive. And it hints that methods outside the normal political channels are justified in confronting such oppression....
We can wreck that system if we forget our Founders’ purpose of creating a representative form of national authority robust enough to secure the public good...but if we pretend we are living in Boston in 1773, we will draw all the wrong conclusions and make some remarkably foolish choices.
See the full article here.
Yes, this is only about our already "generously low" tax rates being oppressive, and not the indecent proposal that government grabs our liberty by the only jewels liberals don't think belong in the federal treasury (yet) and insist on government engaging in activities the founding fathers never envisioned the constitution authorizing.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like my jewels being grabbed unless the president can make me feel denigrated about it in a State of the Union speech. Somehow, that makes me feel like he's personally checking on them with his own hands, and now, like the time I touched the same smart iPhone Anthony Weiner test drove at the Apple Store, I now have to add one more thing to the list of body parts I can never wash again.
I don't know what alternate universe liberals live in, but they must've missed the presence of Tea Party candidates in the 2010 election. That sounds less like they're political outlaws and more like asking the American people to find out what's behind door number 3. I can only imagine this expansion of choice is offensive to liberals because they know that in opening it they wont find a fetus in a jar.
The Tea Party of today rails against higher taxation because it rails against these "public goods" like Social Security that shouldn't objectively exist in the first place (in its current form). That they came with representation is moot if the power exerted to enforce them is extra-constitutional. A law isn't right, just, or justified just because elected officials will them into existence.
If liberals disagree then they can go ahead and vacuum seal their mouths with the same thing they use on their brains when duly elected legislators pass laws regulating abortion and gay marriage in a way that gives their souls a wicked hangover for drinking too much morality.
If control is the primary value judgment that liberals insist on asserting over the liberty to be self-determining, then freedom is impossible to preserve. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, since The New Deal we have been sacrificing liberty for (social) security, and we are ending up with what he said we would deserve, neither.
For 70 years liberals have been so obsessed with making the system "work" that they've failed to see the gas it runs on is the now rejected principles and morals the nation was found upon in the first place.