OT: invisibly interned or enslaved

Jan 23, 2014 2 Replies
Saved reading
Jump to replies (2)

Tea-bagger Rand Paul (on a Fox News broadcast) recently equated the sorry state of affairs for the water-carriers of Tea Party ideas (with the majority-based government, including its elected Chief Executive, not adopting the Tea Party's agenda) in today's politics with the despicable subjugation of Africans and internment of Japanese-ancestry Americans at the hands of the "majority" in America's past. In essence Mr. Paul whined that advocates of Tea Party ideas are invisibly interned or enslaved by the "majority" of today's elected officialdom and, therefore,as equally wronged as the visibly enslaved and interned Americans in history were by the "majority" in those historic times. In commentary following the article I read regarding Mr. Paul's lament, I found this reasoned and politely delivered answer to Mr. Paul's skewed perception of "wrongs" currently endured by Tea Party afficionados and their ideas -- even within just the hallowed confines of the Republican Party. Somehow I missed the chapter in American History where we had a White Supremacy election, and we all voted to imprison Japanese people. You are a white male Republican. Dinosaur, yes. Endangered, yes. But you are not in the minority because of the color of your skin or your race. You are in the minority because of your beliefs; beliefs that the American people are rejecting more and more fervently with every election. Unlike race, you can change your beliefs. You can choose to embrace policies that the majority of Americans want to see enacted. And up to now, I know nothing of Republican internment camps or GOP lynchings. Your rights are not being violated; your party keeps losing elections because it is becoming more and more out of touch with the American people. Please continue, Mr. Senator, please continue....


the worst revenge the liberals could wish on the the TP's would be that they get every one of their wishes and suffer the consequences of their lack of foresight

It would have been interesting to see how Chris Christie would have done in 2016. Romney was a moderate, maybe the only sane Rep. candidate in

2012, but he had things voters ddidnt' like about him, plus he was challenging an incumbent.

Had the GWBridge never happened, Christie's aggressiveness might not have been an issue, but whether he knew in advance or not, the incident will probably keep him from winning the nomination.

In practice, I think that leaves the Reps with the wacko candidates.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required