Friday, April 16, 2010

Tea Partiers

God knows how much I didn't want to write about these freakazoids. I kept hoping that it would soon become apparent to everybody just how ridiculous these clowns are and we won't have to speak of them, think about them, and notice their miserable existence any more. However, this isn't happening. You open any newspaper, magazine, or a political website, and there they are, in all their uneducated, unreasonable glory.

Tea baggers say they are against "big government." I would definitely be willing to respect this position (even though it is contrary to mine), if only they were really against it. The problem is they aren't. We never saw them protesting a single action of the most pro-unchecked-government-control administration this country has ever seen: the Bush Jr. administration.

People who truly oppose the expansion of governmental power and its intrusion into citizens' lives should have been horrified by the Patriot Act. But did you hear any protests coming out of these freaks? No, they just ate up the erosion of their civil rights and said "Thank you, sir."

Another glaring contradiction in the tea-baggers' position is their anger at Obama's Wall Street bailouts. Where the hell were they when Bush created the first humongous bailout and pushed it through Congress through threats and bribery? This happened only 1,5 years ago and, what, they have forgotten it already? If you are against the bailouts (a position I happen to share), take it up with the Republicans who started this whole insanity.

Of course, as we have been learning this entire time, their opposition to the "welfare state" does not prevent most of the tea partiers from receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits.

All of this demonstrates that these people have absolutely no problem with the Big Government or the governmental intrusion into their lives. In fact, more often than not, they welcome these things.
The only thing that motivates these stupid tea baggers is racism. Just think about it. They applaud these policies when they come from a white dude in cowboy boots but protest these very same policies carried out on a much smaller scale when they come from a black guy? What is it if not racism? So how can anybody take these freaks seriously? Their peanut-sized brains are incapable of generating a single logical and reasonable idea. They feel so overcome by their insane rage and hatred that their tiny brains stop functioning entirely. All these people deserve is contempt and ridicule.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


Tom Carter said...

I don't agree with many of the positions tea partiers take, but at the same time my view of the movement is a bit more positive. Seems to me it's a legitimate exercise of freedom of speech and assembly to advocate political positions. And it's done without calling for violence or actually being violent. That's a huge improvement over many of the openly violent demonstrations we've seen in the past.

I don't think the charge of racism really sticks, either. There are quite a few African Americans and other minorities involved. The reason there aren't more, it appears, is that the goals and policy positions the tea partiers advocate aren't necessarily the same as those of some minority communities. That doesn't mean there's anything racist about it.

One other point -- Social Security and Medicare aren't examples of "welfare state" programs in any fair sense. People pay into those programs all of their working lives before they receive any benefits. Those who work and are at least moderately successful pay more into Social Security than they will receive in retirement benefits. As far as Medicare is concerned, people who have taken care of themselves regarding retirement and have some income generally have to pay premiums for Medicare coverage.

I think the real concern among liberals about the tea party movement should be the genuine feeling among many people that government has gone too far, has become too expensive, can't manage its finances, and can't be fixed by either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Paul said...

I think there'd be one heck of lot less tea-baggers if Obama would sh*tcan Geithner and Paulson (and throw Rubin away too).

Having these idiots around to save our economic heineys, is like hiring Tiger Woods as your marriage counselor.

Clarissa said...

"I think the real concern among liberals about the tea party movement should be the genuine feeling among many people that government has gone too far, has become too expensive, can't manage its finances, and can't be fixed by either the Democrats or the Republicans"

-If that is true, then why didn't they protest when the Republicans were in power? My question remains: why didn't we hear a squeak out of those people while Bush Jr. was in power? Why were they silent when he pushed bailouts through the Congress? When he robbed us of our civil rights?

Clarissa said...

"Having these idiots around to save our economic heineys, is like hiring Tiger Woods as your marriage counselor."

-It's actually worse since Tiger Woods gains nothing from destroying people's marriages by his inane advice. These people gain everything from robbing us blind.

Brianna said...

I don't know. Why didn't Rosa Parks stand up in 1954, instead of 1955? Was she really a white supremicist when she went to the back of the bus before then? Did she become a hypocrite on the day she decided not to comply?

What about the libertarians, people who have campaigned against Big Government and the welfare state for years or decades, but only now have finally managed to get the silent majority to join them? What about the young, those just coming into voting age who have somehow managed to evade liberal indoctrination long enough to find the truth and join the tea parties? Are they hypocrites too?

What about the Independents amongst the Tea Partiers, the people who voted for Obama precisely because they were disgusted with Bush, only to find that Obama was doing all the same things Bush did, only he decided to do even more of them. Are they racist too or do they get a pass from the, as Sowell calls them, "anointed ones"? For that matter, is Sowell an "Uncle Tom" for his Libertarian views? Maybe you'd prefer to call him an "oreo"? Or will you be more benevolent and simply say he is "lost and confused," like all the rest of us benighted?

What about this Tea Party, who told the racist infiltraitor to get the hell out; are they racist too?

For that matter, why did these bozos have to infiltrate the tea parties in the first place? Why bother to infiltrate a group specifically to portray them as racist if they've already demonstrated evidence of racism? If there's someone who has video, why haven't they stepped up to claim Breitbart's $100,000 door prize for the UNCF? Why hasn't anyone? It's been nearly a month since the March 20 protest, and nobody's produced a shred of evidence, despite the plethora of cameras. Why is it so impossible to believe that the reason nobody's produced any evidence is because it didn't happen?

And finally, what about you, using homophobic slurs to denounce the tea partiers even as you accuse them of bigotry. If we're the evil homophobes, why is it that it's the liberals who seem utterly, completely incapable of referring to us without the use of insults and derogatory terms?

Finally, here's some food for thought. When a Communist regime takes over, they arrest the people who will oppose them, but they also arrest the intelligentsia, the people who helped them get set up in the first place. Why? Because dictators don't share power, and because former supporters are the people who tend to be most dangerous once they see the system for what it truly is. You'd sure as hell better hope the Tea Partiers are wrong Clarissa, or else it'll be you they'll be coming for once the Tea Partiers have been dealt with.

I am Brianna Aubin, rocket scientist, black belt, objectivist, and tea partier. I'll be seein' y'all in November.

Clarissa said...

Yep. My point exactly. If anybody doubted that these people are ... erm, unstable, here is proof of just how unstable they are.

Notice how she unsubtly threatens me at the end with her seemingly irrelevant mention of her black belt and this childish "they will come for you"?

Don't torture yourself so much by trying to find a name for your movement, Brianna. Libertarian, objectivist, tea party, blah blah. There is a name for your movement that has been around for a while. It's fascism, pure and simple. This hateful, anti-intellectual hysteria is fascist through and through.

Brianna said...

Oh yes, those stock-market abolishing, wealth-hating, property seizing, health care advocating, secular right-wingers. God, they are just like the Nazis, aren't they? /sarcasm I'd recommend that you actually sit down and read the Nazi party platform some time, Clarissa, just to see how much of it you'd agree with once the "kill the jews" bits were taken out. They were not exactly paragons of individualism, limited government, and free enterprise.

I said I am a black belt because I am, not because I intended violence. I consider it to be an accomplishment to my credit, just as I consider my engineering degree to be an accomplishment to my credit (or do you view that as a threat to drop a bomb on you?) I said I'd see you in November because it's election month, not because I'll be knocking on your door in the middle of the night. It is also a fact that people who hold views like yours are targeted by totalitarian regimes right after people like me have been cleared out of the way; if you don't believe me, then ask the Cambodians and the Chinese who got killed when the Communists rolled in.

Incidentally, at what point did you actually respond to any of my arguments? Or is that unnecessary because you disagree with me, and I am therefore de facto immoral, fascistic, and not worth listening to?

Clarissa said...

I don't really see arguments, Brianna, I see ranting, so there is little precious to respond to here. If Tea Partiers were really against big government, I would not share their views but I would absolutely be willing to respect them. The problem is, they are not. For years, they celebrated and supported an authoritarian dictator Bush Jr. For years they swallowed everything he dished out. And now they say that healthcare bill is more conducive to totalitarianism than the Patriot Act? Really? How am I supposed to take such a point of view seriously?

If you personally held your ojectivist beliefs for a while (not just since a black guy came to the Oval Office), then good for you, I respect that. However, these people who suddenly woke up now - and not while they were being destroyed by the most totalitarian government in the history of this country - we got to ask ourselves why now.

These arguments about the communist danger to the US cannot be taken seriously. If you think Obama and the Dems are communists, then you must have never seen or heard a real communist. There is no such danger in this country. The danger of fascism, however, is very strong. Just think about the similarities between the rise of the European fascism and what's happening in the US today. Poverty and unemployment lead to popular resentment. People get angry and direct their anger towards an imaginary enemy. They espouse ideas that are profoundly imperialistic, militaristics, racist, anti-women, anti-gay, and often they are fanatically religious (fascist Spain). They happily give up all their civil rights for the illusion that their fear might be alleviated. Do you really not see similarities? How is Palin, your only leader and icon, not a fascist? Can you name one quality in her, one opinion that makes her opposed to fascism?

Greenconsciousness said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Greenconsciousness said...

Clarrisa don't publish my last comment - i don't mean to criticize you personally publicly but you are so much better than this cheap lefto reactions that wash over you so unexpectedly - your last comment to the lady is better and it was not up when I wrote.

Greenconsciousness said...

oops too late

Clarissa said...

I think you can delete your own comments. I'm not sure how it's done but other people have done it. In any case, I removed it as per your request, even though I found nothing offensive in it.

Clarissa said...

I also wanted to add that many things in libertarian thought are attractive to me. I can quote parts of Ayn Rand's novels by heart. I reread them regularly. I like having discussions with actual libertarians because their emphasis on reason and logic is very attractive to me. One of my favorite bloggers, Izgad ( promotes libertarian views and I love reading him and discussing things with him.

The Tea Partiers, however, have nothing to do with objectivism. Their leader is Palin, not Ron Paul. They rant and rave uncontrollably and when you ask them to explain reasonably and logically their views, they simply can't. So this isn't about objectivism, Ayn Rand, or anything like that. This is about rage and anger of the dispossessed who have been brainwashed by fundamentalist Evangelicals.

Greenconsciousness said...

That is why I like you -- you can rise above static to accept an argument in the spirit it is offered. But your last answer took care of everything. So I'm cool. Hmm I thought I could only delete on my own blog but now I do see the little ashcans on my comments.

NancyP said...

I agree with Clarissa. Racism is a major unspoken motivation for these "Tea Party" folks. So is "I got mine, you go to hell". I have a low opinion of libertarians and drown-government-in-a-bathtub anti-tax, anti-regulation ideologues. They are either naive, disingenuous, or stupid.

I doubt that the ideologues would welcome the consequences of privatized law enforcement and other basic public services. It's one thing to talk about it, another thing to live in a society where the wealthy (fantasy identity of ideologues) live in daily fear of kidnapping, travel with personal bodyguards, live in razor-wired compounds. Last time I looked, Tea Party folks were still flying on airplanes with national safety and traffic control requirements, driving in cars on state-funded roads leading almost anywhere, relying on the FDA to set at least minimal safety standards for drug production, foods, etc.

If we had a government that acknowledged that people will do anything to make money as long as there are no legal or social penalties, and consequently that unfettered free markets also mean unfettered cheating, cronyism, and corruption, we wouldn't have had the derivatives melt-down. We had excellent real economic and productivity growth before the dismantling of banking and securities regulation in the mid-80s and later.

I am not sure why people who assume that poor people cheat do not also make the same assumption about rich people.

As for ridicule, do people here know the original meaning of the slang term "tea-bagging"? (hint: a sexual practice)

Clarissa said...

I know what tea-bagging means. :-) It's not my fault these people chose a name for their movement that lends itself so readily to ridicule. :-) :-)

In my opinion, capitalism is a system that evolves and creates mechanisms of self-regulation. Messing with these mechanisms is profoundly anti-capitalist. The removal of banking and securities regulations was essentially anti-capitalist and led to the need for the Soviet-style interventions by the government (bailouts.)

NancyP said...

Well, the successful capitalist often WANTS to be anti-capitalist. If you are currently at the top of your niche, you aren't likely to be too happy about measures that make it possible for newcomers to grab "your" share of the markets. In particular, currently successful large-scale capitalists generally desire to form oligopolies or monopolies in their market niche, by agreed price setting, coordinated action to repel common enemies (tobacco company joint legal resources and attitude of stonewalling). All unregulated capitalism on a large scale eventually becomes a crony system. At the current time, the USA business culture is committed to the quarterly earnings and not to long-term growth. Individual Americans often have the same attitude.