AMERICAN TEA PARTY - The baggers are quite miffed that Captain America portrays them using their own slogans verbatim. Their complaint only fans the flames of nut jobbery.
It’s time for teabaggers to sit down and relax over a nice cup of Boo-Frickin’-Hoo tea. Baggers are upset over a recent edition of Marvel‘s Captain America comic showing protesting baggers holding signs like, “Stop the Socialists!” and “Tea Bag the Libs Before They Tea Bag You.”
The baggers seem oblivious to the irony of being labeled hot-headed nut-jobs while holding signs almost identical to those in the comic and inviting actual hot-headed nut-jobs to speak at their meetings and conventions.
Here’s the bottom line. Several recent media stories advance the premise that rank and file tea drinkers are much less crazy than their public persona suggests. That’s true. Even in the legions of Republicans and Democrats there are good, decent, common folk who mean well and have the best interests of the country at heart too – regardless of whether you believe them.
Teabaggers are no different. Surely, some members think the fringists are nut-jobs too. However, they shouldn’t howl about being protrayed negatively when their organization cozies up to the nutjobs and does far more to put them in the forefront than those a tad less fanatical.
Now there’s no problem if baggers want to hold up inflammatory signs, it’s their constitutional right. It’s equally true that Marvel comics may call the teasters hot-headed nut-jobs and still be in the right too. Call Obama a socialist? Go ahead, I wouldn’t stop you if I could. One doesn’t have to be polite or agree with constitutionally protected speech. But, common sense should tell you that if you stand between two people holding “Where’s the birth certificate?!” and “Obama is a muslin” (sic) signs others might mistake you for a fellow traveler. Apologies need not be demanded if that happens.
SIGN OF THE TIMES - You can't blame Marvel Comics for mistaking reality for fiction.
If the tea party movement wants to attract level-headed, but passionate, supporters to their cause, they’d do better to get speakers other than Sarah Palin or Tom Tancredo to address their rallies. Their speeches do more to form the public’s opinion of teabaggers as an addle-brained gaggle of malcontents than the numbskulls toting misspelled, insulting, and patently untrue signs. (BTW, this is true for the opposite side of the political spectrum as well, so liberals, don’t be jolly jesters about how dumb the baggers are until you purge your own nutcases.)
People are going to say insulting things, especially in politics. It’s a little disingenuous to call foul when you’re doing the same thing to your own opponents they’re doing to you. After all, it doesn’t matter that a person’s impression is bad, good, or indifferent. It only matters that they have it. The birthers, tea-baggers, liberals,conservatives, Birchers, democans, republicrats, Wobblies, and Orly Tatz should all remember something:
If the worst calamity your movement experiences is an unflattering drawing in a kid’s comic book or being called a Muslim Communist, call it a good day, consider yourself lucky, and let it go.
The heartburn just ain’t worth the trouble.
- Marvel to Edit Explicit “Tea Bag” Reference from Captain America Comic, But Leave In Everything Else Indicating These “Anti-Tax” White Protesters are Dangerous Racists, So You Should Be Appeased, You Stupid Teabagging Racist Bastards (minx.cc)
- Marvel Comics Wusses Out (slog.thestranger.com)
- Tea Party Turmoil: Internal Conflict Plagues Movement Following Convention (huffingtonpost.com)
- Tea Bagger Tancredo Yearns for Return of Jim Crow-Era ‘Literacy Tests’ at Polling Place (bradblog.com)
- Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up (dailykos.com)
- Captain America Versus the Teabaggers (slog.thestranger.com)
- Tea partiers skip prayer and Pledge of Allegiance at opening of national convention. (thinkprogress.org)
- Cheers and Jeers: Wednesday (dailykos.com)
- Oh really? Monica Crowley claims the Tea Parties are uber-popular. A new poll says otherwise (crooksandliars.com)
- Monday Morning Craziness: Orly Taitz Says Obama Has 39 Social Security Numbers (littlegreenfootballs.com)
Pingback: Nutjob under car! | Sweaty Gooch
In that last paragraph, the better way of putting it would be “taking from those that earned the money and giving to those who didn’t” since it isn’t just the wealthy that are stolen from.
Daveawayfromhome,
Hi! I’m glad you chimed in. You wrote:
True. They’re learning what we will have to learn: socialist entitlements are unsustainable.
True, then entered Margaret Thatcher.
I can’t argue with that and don’t but as in all things, it’s a matter of degree. The people from whom the government takes must consent to that taking or they will rebel (and I don’t mean violently but with schemes of tax avoidance). Our current level of entitlement spending has long been seen to be unsustainable. Obama’s idea of just taxing the rich won’t work since they’ll either leave for places where the government doesn’t exact punitive taxation, find shelters for their wealth, reduce their income to a lower level in a lower tax bracket until government comes to it’s collective senses and quits punishing the successful for their success or otherwise elude such high taxation. Besides, there aren’t enough rich to cover the cost of the current entitlements, let alone the expansion of them, even if all of them stayed and none of them evaded punitive taxation. In the end, and I think Obama is dawning to this, he will have to raise the taxes of more than just the rich. So it seems that everyone is going to have to accept a bigger bite. The problem is, a sizable majority already say they want smaller government and lower taxes. It’s unclear how much bigger a bite people will stand for before they either accept that entitlement spending will have to be reduced.
The problem is, takings for public use are viewed as an evil from which all benefit whereas other forms of government forced redistribution are seen for what they are, taking from the rich who earned their wealth and giving to others who did not. That is to say, as legal theft. People will only accept so much of that.
It’s also nice for quotations.
addendum to Brother Will:
try using italics, which are created by putting your words between the HTML tags <i>whatever you have to say</i>, thus sounding like someone who is being emphatic rather than someone who’s spraying spittle in everyone’s face.
Oh, and this to Brother Will:
All caps = shouting
Also, all caps = internet equivalent of ranting street crazy, to be avoided by the internet equivalent of crossing the road, which is to glide past that comment (and all subsequent comments by the same person) and on to the next, more reasonably typed commenter.
“Europe is further along the Road to Serfdom than is America”
Yes, but they’re heading away from it. You rememmber, they had it in spades once.
“…but his philosophy includes some socialist principles. Then again, so does anyone who believes in social security or Medicare”
or utilities, or police, fire and ambulance, or schools, or mail service, or interstate highways and roads…
“Well, I disagree with the whole concept and implementation of Social Security and Medicare and such. It is socialist. They’re wealth-redistributionist ponzi schemes.”
ALL societies are wealth redistribution schemes. When taxes are used to implement works for social use, that’s wealth redistribution. When you do work that brings your boss more money than you get paid to do it, that too is wealth redistribution.
And I think that calling someone a socialist, if that person is, in fact, a socialist, is not name-calling; it is identifying that person’s political philosophy. As you say, there is an element of degree about it. To a degree, almost all Americans have some socialist tendencies in this day. And, as you say, Obama is not, in my opinion, a Maoist, a Lenninist, a Castroist or a Ilist but he’s much more of a socialist than I am comfortable with.
Well, I disagree with the whole concept and implementation of Social Security and Medicare and such. It is socialist. They’re wealth-redistributionist ponzi schemes. If a person in the private sector tried to implement such a scheme, they’d be tried, convicted and spend a fairly long stretch in prison. The problem from my point of view is that it is politically impossible to be quit of them. So a Republican needn’t be considered a socialist if, despite philosophical disagreement with a socialist program, he recognizes and resigns himself to the political realities.
Omni,
The chick was White House communication’s director, Anita Dunn. She’s not really in the policy decision and implementation area so I really don’t see how her Mao love is all that problematic. I kind of think the comment was politically stupid. I mean, I really don’t think Obama wanted one of his people identifying herself with a mass-murdering communist but hey…who knows. I know that anyone in my administration that made such a stupid comment would be gone that same day. No one that stupid should be anywhere near the seat of such power. But that may be just me.
Craig,
I’m not sure who the “chick” is, but even if she said her favorite philosopher was Mao doesn’t necessarily mean she’s a Maoist. Even if Obama chose someone who was truly Maoist, how is that different than choosing, say, a Republican? Just because he may choose a Republican doesn’t make him a Republican. That’s why I don’t generally complain about what anyone calls anyone else. I don’t think it matters except to the extent that the name-calling person may be hypocritical for complaining when some calls them names.
As for the socialist thing, I oddly think everyone has a point. I don’t see him as much a socialist as you do – and certainly not Kruchev incarnate as apparently Brother Will does – but his philosophy includes some socialist principles. Then again, so does anyone who believes in social security or Medicare. Does that mean that almost every Republican since those laws were enacted become de facto socialists because they supported it? Only if my believing in some conservative principles makes me a conservative I’d guess.
To me it’s a matter of degree. In the end, I don’t think it matters what a person calls someone (which is sort of the point of the post) or how they identify themselves…what matters is that they can get the job done. That quality isn’t the exclusive provence of any political philosophy. Neither is it the exclusive provence of any philosophy to have failures as well.
We’s all just people with 350 million different names.
Omni,
The one bit of evidence for his thesis is that chick who publicly proclaimed that her favorite political philosopher was Chairman Mao. At least with regard to her, I gotta say the evidence is pretty strong. Anyone whose fav philosopher is Mao has gotta be pretty chummy with socialism. Of course, he seems to be extrapolating from that one individual and painting Obama and his entire administration with the same brush. There is a step or two that needs to be filled in between one individual declaring her love of Mao as a philosopher and declaring this administration to be socialists. One of those steps, I suppose, would be: Obama chose this Mao’s-philosphy-lover. If Obama knew of her Maoist proclivities and chose her anyway, that might be strong evidence that Obama is a socialist as well. Of course, Obama might not have been aware of those leanings or, being aware of them, Obama might have chose her, in spite of her Maoist leanings, on the strength of other characteristics so I think that particular argument is weak. One might argue that his eagerness to gain virtual ownership of large financial institutions and control of two large auto companies shows his socialist leanings. I personally think his interventionism in private enterprise, his intended expansion of government size and power point to his Social Democrat leanings. Anyway, I imagine that Brother Will will chime in to further defend his opinion so I’ll leave the field now.
Ciao
I don’t want to talk about democracy. Never have. We’re a republic. Or rather, we’re a union of state republics. There are both democratic and republican features to our governments but I’m not a fan of too much democracy. The majority of people are too politically unsophisticated and uninformed to leave governance in their hands or to rely too strongly upon public opinion in policy decision-making.
As for the socialism thing, I’m with you. They’re socialists. I call them socialists. As far as I can tell, Obama is a Euro-style Social Democrat, direct descendant of socialist ideology but includes capitalistic features. They work within the current mixed economy. Europe is further along the Road to Serfdom than is America but I fully believe that Obama thinks Europe has the right idea and the closer he can turn our economy into the equivalent of that of Europe, the happier he’ll be.
As for my decision to stay away from the ballot box last November and that making me unpatriotic, my ‘GiveAShit-O-Meter’ doesn’t even flicker on that one. Your opinion of my patriotism is on a par with an ant’s opinion of my morals just before I negligently step on it and squish the life out of it.
Have a great day!
Brother Will,
I’m not sure what got tweaked or who tweaked it, but OK, we all got purple nurples from you if it makes you feel better.
The problem is that you can’t prove a negative, though God knows, teabaggers try really hard to make their opponents try.
For example, your opinion that “they call themselves socialists. They publicly have declared either that they are Marxist, or that they support Marxist ideology.”
I don’t know of any place where anyone declared themselves Marxist nor stated they support Marxist ideology. Since you didn’t provide evidence of anyone actually saying it, there is no factual evidence to verify your “opinion” one way or another.
So here’s a test BrotherWill. Why don’t you turn your “opinion” into fact? Cite the examples of people calling themselves Marxist. If you can, we have something to work with. If not, opinions are exactly what each of us has. And as they say, “opinions are like assholes…everyone has one.”
In this argument there are only two opinions that can be factually validated. I think you are an ironically-challenged goob, though one with good intentions that I think are a crock of shit. You think I’m a vodka swilling commie who controls William Ayres as a spy asset. I think this is what you think and I know this is what I think. Beyond that, you are as unable to prove your claims as I am to prove them wrong.
Mirages work that way Brother Will. Please do yourself a flavor and stop by the next tea stand – or better yet – here’s some of my commie vodka. You need a drink.
You guys are so easy to tweek. And still, haven’t heard one of you post any proof invalidating any of my claims, just opinions. I can back up my claims as to the socialist and marxist agenda of this administration. What I’m waiting for is one of you to post some sort of proof that what I said is false. So far, nada. Just silly, predictable comments like “go back on your meds” or ” you don’t know what a socialist is”. Well, thats easy to say, but not so easy to back up.
Now, as far as being a lefty, you had three choices in the last election really. Obama, McCain, or dont vote. If you voted for Obama, that by defacto means you support his socialist ideology. YOU VOTE FOR HIM. Now if you chose McCain (I know, I didn’t really like him either, but lessor of two evils) thats a definitive stand against Obamunism. I think very few people actually believed in McCain honestly. Most who voted for him (at least those I’ve spoke too) was due to object fear of what they knew was coming with Obamunism. Now, if you picked the third option, stay home, well…thats IMHO the poorest choice you could of made. For one, thats a defacto vote for Obama (who we knew had the best chance to get elected). Secondly, its very unpatriotic to not vote. You want to talk about Democracy but then not vote? Puuuhlease. Take a side. Its not going to be perfect. I defy any of you to show me a candidate that was perfect. Sure you may find one guy who thinks so, but the masses will not all agree. But for Heavens sake, take a side. So, to summarize, if you voted for Obama or didnt vote at all, you are endorsing him by default because you didnt oppose him, the one favored to win.
As far as the socialism is concerned, what you guys fail to comprehend is , I didn’t label them socialists. They call themselves socialists. They publicly have declared either that they are Marxist, or that they support Marxist ideology. To deny they are socialist is like saying “well, just because you admire the head of the KKK and Adolph Hitler as great philosophers, doesnt mean your a racist”. See what I am talking about when I say you guys need a serious dose of reality? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck , and for crying out loud CALLS ITSELF A DUCK, its a freaking duck. Wake up. I would take a million tea baggers before I would take one of you deniers. At least they are cemented in reality and know right from wrong.
Sounds like Brother Will needs to go back on his meds. These folks have absolutely no idea what a real socialist looks like do they.
Omni,
Yeh, I’d've voted for the Ayres/Wright ’08 ticket if those two lovable lefties had run for office.
Seriously though, one needn’t be a Maoist to find things to criticize about the Tea Party movement. Personally, I am not now nor have I ever been a liberal. I stand firmly to the right of center (although undoubtedly to the left of Brother Will). While I could not bring myself to vote for McCain/Palin, I’ve voted Republican in every national election since I turned 18 and no power on earth would have gotten me to vote for Obama/Biden.
Funny how some people will take one’s willingness to level any criticism at Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement as proof that one is to the left of Mao without knowing anything else about one’s politics.
And talk about counting chickens! “[G]araunteeing (sic) a win for the tea baggers come this Nov and 2012 and probably is spelling the demise of radical liberalism in the US.”? If by a win for the tea baggers, Brother Will means a Republican President in 2012, then I’m all for it and the demise of radical liberalism in the US could not come too soon for me but I don’t think there’s anything guaranteed about holding Obama to one term in office — all it will take is for the American people to feel like the economy is in reasonably good shape for Obama to be pretty much guaranteed two terms in office, if you ask me — and radical liberalism is in absolutely no danger of dying off, regardless of how Obama fares. There are too many radical liberal professors in colleges and universities in this country, shaping the ideas and ideals of our young people for such a thing to occur, if one should ask me.
Now, should Obama’s one and only term be viewed generally as a dismal disaster, it could be a long time before another person as liberal as Obama gets elected President but that’s not the same thing as the demise of radical liberalism.
I was going to make such a great comment on how intelligent and thought out your article was. There was no real nasty comment no communist or other hate speak no flag waving while threatening to secede, nothing. Just an hoest exchange of idea. I continued down reading the comments and the WHAM a bur hit me. Out of nowhere and a bus not all that truthful either. You were accused of name calling in the very first sentence you are a jerk. LOL unreal. There is no compromise with these nit wits. Thye won’t be happy until they have destroyed any semblence of a democracy. Anyways keep up the good work, I don’t need a 2,000 word article to scream be rude and abusive.
In fact, here are the comments I referenced above presented verbatim in case your browser chokes or something:
By ReallyTrue (http://www.skewz.com/user/profile/reallytrue)
When I hear unlearned jerks insulting what they call “tea baggers”, it truly amazes me. Why? Because these people who joined with hundreds of thousands of others, are regular people – they are your neighbors, your co-workers, AMERICAN CITIZENS, VOTERS.
The leftist idiots can spew all the hatred and insults they want, but they are nothing more than a reflection of THEMSELVES. I went to a townhall meeting because I had read the intitial healthcare reform bill last year, and I was appalled to read right there in black and white that it would give the government the right to come to your private residence to innoculate you and/or your children with whatever the immunization of the day happened to be: they planned to begin with the controversial drug gardysol which might prevent uterus cancer if given to teenage girls. The problem is two-fold: first, according to the provision in the bill, there would be no opt-out; no appeal. They would have legal paperwork in one hand, and a syringe in the other, period, end of story. Second, there are those folks who do not want this drug injected into their daughters because some young girls as a result of that drug, will never walk, speak or learn ever again: they now wear diapers and are fed baby food or fed thru a tube. The point here is that this is AMERICA, where we are A FREE PEOPLE who have the right to choose whether we want something injected into ourselves or our kids. But with this bill, the govt makes parental decisions. Another appalling part of the initial healthcare reform bill was that the govt would have real-time access to every one of every citizen’s private bank accounts: they can withdraw and transfer funds OUT OF YOUR PRIVATE BANK ACCOUNTS to help pay for whatever treatment they may approve for you. Your money goes missing and then you get a letter within 30 days telling you why and where it went. Hopefully that money wasn’t in your account to cover a check you wrote for your RENT, huh?
These were only TWO of the things in the initial healthcare bill that made me put on my coat and GO TO A TOWNHALL MEETING TO QUESTION THESE THINGS. When I got there, people just like me WHO WERE NOT YELLING, NOT MEAN, NOT ACTING LIKE NUTJOBS, just there with our hands up to ask a question, WERE EITHER IGNORED OR INSULTED. We were also treated like five year olds who were pretty much being told to shut up, sit down and let the govt take care of the particulars and everything would be just honky-dory.
The next day, Nancy Pelosi was accusing us of carrying swastika’s and wearing them on our sleeves; Barbara Boxer was insisting that we “couldn’t possibly be just normal folks, because we were ‘dressed too well’ “. Do these people even realize when they are insulting people or does this stuff just pour out of their elitest mouths like diaharria? ANYWAY, THAT WAS PLENTY FOR THIS VOTER. This DEMOCRAT VOTER. I heard that people were going to get together to try once again to get these people to listen to us. I heard about a rally that was being formed and the woman who first brought it up at my townhall meeting was a lady who was about 78 years old and she had an oxygen tank strapped to her back: hardly the idea of a dangerous revolutionary for sure.
BOTTOM LINE: Keep it up. Keep on insulting people, because you are insulting regular American people, not revolutionaries, not political activists, not a bunch of nutjobs, not people paid off to show up by the Republicans, and certainly not “hot headed”.
After the Washington DC Rally one Saturday afternoon, when all the hundreds of thousands of citizens had gone home, photographs were taken of the sidewalks, the streets, everywhere those people stood singing and holding signs. You couldn’t see so much as a soda cup left; in fact, the Dept. of Streets made a public comment that the entire area was left IN BETTER SHAPE AND CLEANER than it was before those people arrived. This is because these people who showed up there are regular, decent people who DO NOT WANT THIS ADMINISTRATION TO DESTROY OUR ECONOMY, TO SPEND US INTO BANKRUPTCY, TO CONTNUE TO SPEND MONEY OF BABIES WHO HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN BORN YET, WHO WANT TO DICTATE RATHER THAN TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE; AN ADMINISTRATION WHO HAS NO REGARD OR RESPECT FOR THIS NATION, HER HERITAGE OR HER PEOPLE.
Liberals, Progressives, whatever you wish to call them, actually pay people to be bused to events to try to make it look like the people are in favor of whatever it is they want – BUT NOBODY HAD TO ASK ME TO GO TO A TOWNHALL OR A RALLY; NOBODY NEEDED TO PAY ME TO DO IT; I went like all the others because I see that if we don’t stop this radical agenda from going forward, THERE WON’T BE ANY AMERICA LEFT. In less than 230 years we have become the most powerful, most wealthy, most desireable Nation on Earth. We are an experiment in awesome. America is exceptional because America’s people are free. Free of Govt intrusion in the private sector, free of dictatorship, free to create and invent and raise our families in peace, harmony and love. WE DO NOT INTEND ON GIVING THAT UP.
Our rights and freedoms do not belong to any of us: they were handed to us on a silver platter by those who died on battlefields past; they are entrusted to us as custodians to preserve and protect them for the next generation, which is our own children. They are not ours to give away. They are not Obama’s to give away.
IT IS NOT THE TASK OF THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY PROGRESSIVE to remake or transform America. We already have an “America”, and she is proven time and time again to be the finest Nation on the Planet. Obama took an oath to preserve and protect our Founding Documents and our Nation regardless of personal or financial cost to himself. HE LIED. HIS INTENTION IS TO BURN OUR ECONOMY TO THE GROUND SO THAT HE CAN REMAKE THIS NATION INTO SOMETHING OF HIS OWN VISION OR IMAGE. HE IS A REVOLUTIONARY AND HE IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO AMERICA EVER SEEN TO WALK THE SACRED HALLS OF OUR WHITE HOUSE.
WHO ARE TEA PARTY PEOPLE? They are someone’s aunt, uncle, brother and sister. They are somebody’s Pastor, the farmers, the school teachers, the mailman. They are the baker, the kid who makes pizza at Papa Johns, the pharmacy tech who fills your script every month. They are the nurses and doctors in the Emergency Room when you slip on the ice and break your ankle; they are THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND NOW YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR ALL OF US: EVERY ONE OF US USING OUR TINY VOICES THAT WILL COME TOGETHER AND SAY ALOUD TO ALL OF YOU LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE,ANTI-AMERICAN, FREEDOM-HATING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HIDE OUR HERITAGE AND ERASE OUR HISTORY, HEAR US:
YOUR ILKE TRIED TO DESTROY OUR AMERICA BEFORE WE EVEN BEGUN; YOU HATED THE VERY FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS THAT YOU YOURSELF EXERCISE EVERY DAY TO SPEW YOUR VENOMOUS HATRED AND LIES. YOU HAVE NO TRUTH TO BACK YOU UP, ONLY A DIRTY SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST DECENT PEOPLE. YOUR SMEAR CAMPAIGN WEAPON IS GETTING OLD AND WE THE PEOPLE SEE RIGHT THRU TO WHAT YOU REALLY ARE: MISERABLE LITTLE SAD-SACKS WHO CANNOT STAND TO SEE ANYONE ELSE HAPPY. WE SEE THAT UNDERNEATH YOUR PRETENSE OF COMPASSION AND CARE, LIES NOTHING MORE THAN SELFISH INTENT AND A FANTASY THAT YOU ARE TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO LEAVE BEHIND BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BEAR TO FACE REALITY OR DEAL WITH LIFE AS IT REALLY IS. SCARED LITTLE BUGS WHO ARE ABOUT TO BE USHERED BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK WHERE YOU CAME FROM.
WHEN YOU THREATEN THE FUTURE OF AN ENTIRE NATION’S CHILDREN, BE PREPARED WITH SOMETHING MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN JUST NAME CALLING AND LIES. YOU’LL NEED IT.
So know this full-well: I don’t care if you are a Republican or a Democrat: if you are a liberal progressive, you go ahead and spend every dime you have trying to get elected, because every one of you – Mayors, town representatives, Burough Councils, Congressmen, Senators, President – ONE BY ONE YOU WILL BE PACKING UP YOUR THINGS AND HEADING HOME…….YOU ARE WORKING AGAINST THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WE WILL NO LONGER STAND FOR IT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LETTER IS BEHIND YOUR NAME.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Go ahead, keep it up. Make my day.
BrotherWill,
Actually, I thought I was being pretty charitable, not hate filled. But, what the hell?
Yes, I am a Marxist czar who pisses on the constitution daily. Hugo and I are golfing buddies and the flag in my office is actually Red Chinese, so I’d appreciate a retraction for being lumped in with those pantywaist Rooskies. And, of course, Mao can’t hold a candle to Sarah in the philosophy department (I know, it’s hillarious).
Speaking of hilarity…you might want to have a nice cup of tea with one of your brethren:
http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/raquo-teabaggers-time-for-boo-frickin-hoo-tea?section=comments
Craig, I know you’re a radical liberal from way back. Do you want to throw your two cents in here?
Hey guys, tone down the hate. Its seething from your comments. Anyways, I was just wondering how you all felt about the fact that your liberal radicalism is what garaunteeing a win for the tea baggers come this Nov and 2012 and probably is spelling the demise of radical liberalism in the US.?
I mean when you start appointing Czars to circumvent the Constitution and it just so happens that a good number them self identify as Marxists and say that Mao Tse Tung is a great philosopher publicly (I know, its hilarious). Oh, I forgot about the ones praising Hugo Chavez and the bloggers on your campaign that hang the USSR flag in their office. Jeez, I have no idea where they get the idea you guys are socialist. Actually, I have no idea why you guys keep denying it.
But hey, I guess we all cant live in reality. Anyway, good luck to you guys, and vote Palin 2012.
This is the problem with this group (if indeed it can be characterized as a group rather than a bunch of mobs gathering across the country with similar populist sentiments): no leadership, no centralized organization to unify membership around a limited platform and marginalize the fringe elements. It is primarily about whipping up anger and suspicion rather than about providing an intellectually coherent message to attract rational participants and engage in rational debate on issues. This may eventually occur but I somehow doubt it since the whole tone tends to turn off the sort of people necessary to providing such an intellectual coherence and leadership that can and will marginalize the fringes out of the group. Can anyone imagine a Wm. F. Buckley, who managed to weed out Ayn Rand and the John Birchers from the conservative umbrella, wishing to be associated with the Tea Party movement as chief intellectual, providing the sort of forum for the tea-partiers that Buckley provided for conservative thinkers? And if a WFB came along, I rather suspect that he would be roundly eschewed by the tea-partiers. They are about populist outrage, not intellectual rumination.
Pingback: www.buzzflash.net