@bigbadwolf: Churchill did not go to university at all, and compared to most PMs was almost uneducated, which given that he was eligible for a US passport should not shock you.
He did however have a Cambridge college named after him, a rare honour shared by one Jesus of Nazareth.
Technically Margaret Thatcher didn't go to Oxford either. As a woman, when Britain was still at that point nominally a Christian country, her options were highly constrained. So she studied Chemistry in Oxford not at Oxford.
The tea party is not against immigration, it is against ILLEGAL immigration. This issue is twisted non stop in the news here. I fail to see the issue people have. Mexico has stringent illegal immigrant laws for its southern boarder, but it is somehow wrong for us to have laws for ours.
I also take offense at the implication that a high level of religious observation is some how indicative of low intelligence. Just because someone hold religious beliefs does not make them uneducated. There is also a significant range between people who are fanatically faith based and people who are religious, but hold scientific view points. Try and be a little more unbiased or accepting of various beliefs in your statements.
Anthony: "The USA has horrible literacy rates? How so? I've seen 99% reported by the CIA"
The CIA also reported that East Germany had the same GDP per head as West Germany. I'd believe Fox News before a report from the CIA on national capability. The term you want to google on is functional literacy.
The Tea Party is not lead anymore than the liberals and other groups are lead.
That's a valid point, in some ways Jon Stewart is one of the most powerful men in America. In other ways he isn't the most powerful man in his building.
I agree with the point that many Tea party people are against illegal immigration, but that is not the same as being colour blind. George W. Bush was a strong supporter of a path to citizenship for mostly Hispanic illegals, and that was stopped by naked racism from both left and right. Aside from gays, GWB's social attitudes actually put him nearer the Democrats than the Tea party. Recall his medical support for victims of AIDS, and serious aid to Africa.
The laws favour white people, so implicitly anyone supporting them favours the mix of immigrants they sanction. That does not of itself make them racists of course, but it does not make them liberals.
I of course have a problem with the American use of the word "liberal" equated to socialist. My wife (who did Politics at Oxford) tells me I'm a 19th century liberal, (I prefer the term classical liberal). The Tea party is strongly in favour of big government when it suits them. The largest socialist healthcare programme in the world is run for Veterans and for various people who haved worked for the US government. The British Army has long managed to have gays in the military without problems and Tony Blair legalized gay marriage years ago. TP people are very up for government getting into people's bedrooms and big government if it's big government they like.
As a classical liberal I do not respect gay people, black culture, or feminist poetry, I just don't feel that I have a right to interfere, nor the government on my behalf. Same with religion, I have contempt for faith, but as long as the rap music doesn't wake me up, and I am not forced to stop and listen to religious or feminist rantings it's not my problem.
Tea party people aren't into "freedom". They are into freedom for them. The test of any doctrine is how it deals with people you don't like. Any fool can be nice to people on the same side.
