The Tea Baggers (Party) - is it such a bad thing?

[wautd]

I consider any group which reminds me to nazi brownshirts as a bad thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed, he's a rich mixed-race conservative christian... Which makes him evil. Ah, sweet logic.

Obama's a centrist compromiser, yes. But a conservative? Certainly not in the same sense, or to the same degree, that Teabaggers tend to be conservative.

[Serafina]

He is pretty conservative on most things by european standards, tough.

Anyway - yes, the Tea Party is a bad thing. Morons are bad, but morons with a public voice are worse - much worse.
I don't see them getting actual power - but if they ever get it, it would be a disaster.
But they do not have to have actual, direct power - they are apparently already influencing us-american politics, and pretty much every single oppinion by them is retarded and just plain harmful - to others, their nation and occasionally even to themselves.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't pity them. In a nation with free access to public libraries ignorance is a choice.

I don't pity them either, not really, but I have to question ignorance being a choice. One of the hallmarks of ignorance is the Dunning-Kruger effect: people who don't know things generally don't know how much there is to know, either.

Someone who thinks Obama is a secret evil Muslim Commie Liberation Theology whatever isn't ignorant by choice; they honestly, God help them, believe that there is no choice, that this is the true reality, and that it is everyone else who is blind, because the bulk of commonly available sources are full of lies.

And they are encouraged in this belief by evil people who want to use them as tools. To a point, yes, they chose to be ignorant... but once they started down the path of ignorance, they rapidly lost the ability to decide not to walk it, because their ignorance makes it impossible for them to recognize that they are ignorant.

[Kanastrous]

A number of people around here are certainly not in the Tea Party camp yet they choose to educate themselves regarding what the TP'ers say and believe...and in truth I don't care how-much-you-don't-know-influences-how-much-you-can-know. If you know that there's a library in your town (so to speak) everything proceeds from there...

...and in any case I don't see any reason not to condemn them for that initial choice. They made it and they bear full responsibility for all that proceeds from it. The real problem is that they won't be the only people to suffer the consequences; if it were all going to be on them I'd say fine, you're welcome to suffer for whatever stupidity you choose to believe in. But since the rest of us could well be dragged down by their disgusting willfull know-nothing bumpkinism I don't think anyone really ought to be so generous.

[Cecelia5578]

Yeah I agree that they are hypocrites for saying nothing during eight years of Bush.

But I think that's part of a much bigger problem: the inability of the Teabaggers, (plus a lot of people on the right) to believe in the legitimacy of a Democratic president. I blame the toxic atmosphere of the 90s. These fuckers never criticize Republican fiscal irresponsibility or breaches of civil liberties, but as soon as a Dem is in the White House start thinking in apoclyptic terms.

[Aaron]

I just find it hilarious that folks can claim Obama is illegitimate. Do they have no faith in their own party? If Obama was an illegal candidate, the GOP would have been flogging that shit left, right and centre. Hell I'll bet that was one of the firt things they looked at.

[Big Phil]

So here's another question: are the Teabaggers really something new, or are they just conservative Republicans with a different title? I'm sure the same anger/rage/resentment/persecution complex was there during Clinton's term, but what's added in this time is good old fashioned racism directed at Barack Obama.

[General Zod]

I just find it hilarious that folks can claim Obama is illegitimate. Do they have no faith in their own party? If Obama was an illegal candidate, the GOP would have been flogging that shit left, right and centre. Hell I'll bet that was one of the firt things they looked at.

I'm pretty sure they've been flogging the topic to death since before Obama won the Democratic primaries.

[Aaron]

No I mean like GW going on TV and saying "yeah, we looked into it and none of it adds up." I don't mean the fuckers on the fringe, if Obama wasn't eligible then he wouldn't have gotten sworn in. These guys are implying a pretty wide ranging (and laughable) conspiracy, right up there with the 9/11 ones.

[General Zod]

No I mean like GW going on TV and saying "yeah, we looked into it and none of it adds up." I don't mean the fuckers on the fringe, if Obama wasn't eligible then he wouldn't have gotten sworn in. These guys are implying a pretty wide ranging (and laughable) conspiracy, right up there with the 9/11 ones.

Eh, I don't really see why they would if it gets people to vote against Obama.

[Aaron]

Well there is that I suppose.

[Cecelia5578]

I just find it hilarious that folks can claim Obama is illegitimate. Do they have no faith in their own party? If Obama was an illegal candidate, the GOP would have been flogging that shit left, right and centre. Hell I'll bet that was one of the firt things they looked at.

I was thinking in slightly different terms: that supposedly the values that the Democrats hold are so antithetical to American values that there is something fundamentally wrong with them being in power.

Of course Obama you get xenophobia and racism mixed in there, and obviously no shortage of hypocrisy. Like in the 90s (I actually remember stuff like this being discussed, like on the old POW board at warships1) how a lot if conservatives thought Clinton had destroyed the military and had all sorts of doomsday scenarios planned out. Of course W comes along and does more damage to the military than Clinton couldve ever done, but IOKIYAR. Plus he's really smart cause he got picked to fly F106s!

[D.Turtle]

So here's another question: are the Teabaggers really something new, or are they just conservative Republicans with a different title? I'm sure the same anger/rage/resentment/persecution complex was there during Clinton's term, but what's added in this time is good old fashioned racism directed at Barack Obama.

They are simply very conservative Republicans.

From a Quinnipiac poll in March:

Looking at voters who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement:
* 74 percent are Republicans or independent voters leaning Republican;
* 16 percent are Democrats or independent voters leaning Democratic;
* 5 percent are solidly independent;
* 77 percent voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008;
* 15 percent voted for President Barack Obama.

From a CBS/NYT poll in April:

94. Think about past elections in which you have voted, including national and statewide elections. Would you say you always vote Republican, usually vote Republican, vote about equally for both parties, usually vote Democratic, or always vote Democratic?

Always Republican 18
Usually Republican 48
Equally for both 25
Usually Democrat 3
Always Democrat 2
Never vote (vol.) 1
DK/NA 2

How would you describe your views on most political matters? Generally do you think of yourself as liberal, moderate, or conservative? IF LIBERAL, ASK: Would you say you are very liberal or only somewhat liberal? IF CONSERVATIVE, ASK: Would you say you are very conservative or only somewhat conservative?
Very liberal 0
Somewhat liberal 4
Moderate 20
conservative 34
Very conservative 39

Especially the CBS/NYT poll has some very interesting additional stuff in there, like Tea Party supporters being more likely to be on Medicare and Social Security than other people, they love Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and George W. Bush.

[Simon_Jester]

So here's another question: are the Teabaggers really something new, or are they just conservative Republicans with a different title? I'm sure the same anger/rage/resentment/persecution complex was there during Clinton's term, but what's added in this time is good old fashioned racism directed at Barack Obama.

More of the same, I'd say. The extra stuff that gets thrown at Obama would have been thrown just as hard at Clinton if he'd been black, if he'd had foreign relatives, and so on.

I'm pretty sure they've been flogging the topic to death since before Obama won the Democratic primaries.

Only through proxies, though, because they know damn well it isn't true. So they have to be careful, because they can't afford to raise the stakes on the "Obama isn't a real American!" issue too high for fear of getting slammed too hard by a counterattack.

[Channel72]

So here's another question: are the Teabaggers really something new, or are they just conservative Republicans with a different title? I'm sure the same anger/rage/resentment/persecution complex was there during Clinton's term, but what's added in this time is good old fashioned racism directed at Barack Obama.

The Republicans obviously hated Clinton, but the level of populist media-driven rage and panic we're seeing directed against Obama seems to be wholly unprecedented. Fortunately, given that the only people who would ever actually vote for a Tea Party candidate are conservative Republicans, the Tea Party movement is likely to backfire by splitting the GOP vote.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it only seems unprecedented for two reasons:

Before we never had a black president, and on the far right, even for people who don't explicitly view a black president as a bad thing, they're going to feel unnerved by the president being "foreign-" not one of us. These are the same people who vote for Sarah Palin because they think she's just like their neighbors; show them someone who is obviously not like their neighbors and it's no wonder they panic.

The other reason is that it's been ten years since the '90s. In that time, the far right has had more time to marinade in right-wing propaganda, and more time to collectively reinforce their own beliefs (especially over the Internet). To make matters worse, from 2000-08, that same engine was telling them things were okay, Bush was in charge and all was well. From their point of view, that stopped very quickly right around 2008 with the Democratic takeover.

So suddenly they go from "Bush is in charge and all is well" to Recession! Gay Marriage! Withdrawal from Iraq just when... we were winning, right? To them it looks like Obama (and to a lesser extent the other Dems) must be responsible for all this, because they weren't paying attention when these crises first arose because of the "Bush is in charge and all is well" idea being pushed at them.

[Temujin]

So here's another question: are the Teabaggers really something new, or are they just conservative Republicans with a different title? I'm sure the same anger/rage/resentment/persecution complex was there during Clinton's term, but what's added in this time is good old fashioned racism directed at Barack Obama.

Everything I've heard points to them being a recurring phenomenon in American politics, popping up every few years when the political situation is right (or in their eyes wrong), just under a different guise.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I refer to them as "Banana Republicans" meaning they want to run the country as a currupt 3rd world dictatorship.

[LionElJonson]

Of course the teabaggers want to cut spending. Health care and welfare spending make up, what, 60% of the total budget?

Five seconds of google search turned up this.

Wiki to be sure... But... There is no single aspect of the budget over 25% there. Healthcare and Social Security Together are barely 40% of the budget.
And if you are serious about lowering the budget, why WHY won't you cut the military?

For what it's worth, I was including that "Other mandatory" in that 60% figure, though the 4% TARP figure would fit in as well. Sure, that probably includes schools, but private schools are better anyway, and don't cost the government anything. Also, as to why not to cut the military? There are only two good uses for tax moneys: the military, and the whole law enforcement system (police, courts, attorneys, et cetera).

Slash those down to nothing, and cut taxes by 30 or 40 percent, and you're dramatically reducing the amount of debt the US government's racking up,

How does lowering taxes decrease the debt?
Taxes are a source of INCOME.
Lowering spending, thats fine, I understand that. But how does lowering a source of INCOME Reduce the debt?
I am not one to normally harp on people, but just tell me how this works?

Because you've cut spending by 60%, and cut taxes by 30-40%, thereby improving the tax-to-spending ratio. Additionally, less taxes means the economy does better, and the economy doing better means that people make more money, and thereby pay more taxes.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Because you've cut spending by 60%, and cut taxes by 30-40%, thereby improving the tax-to-spending ratio. Additionally, less taxes means the economy does better, and the economy doing better means that people make more money, and thereby pay more taxes.

Hahah you are fucking dumb; prove that america sits to the right of the maximum on the laffer curve.

[Gil Hamilton]

Clearly, the poster that thinks that the only good use for tax money is the military and law enforcement doesn't drive. After all, what does he think pays for road maintanence?

[Temjin]

For what it's worth, I was including that "Other mandatory" in that 60% figure, though the 4% TARP figure would fit in as well. Sure, that probably includes schools, but private schools are better anyway, and don't cost the government anything. Also, as to why not to cut the military? There are only two good uses for tax moneys: the military, and the whole law enforcement system (police, courts, attorneys, et cetera).

And what happens to the children whose parents just can't afford private schools? Do they just not get an education? Do they get to spend their lives as janitors, cleaners, and fast food workers as those are almost the only jobs you can get with no education?

Of course, once those children grow up and have children of their own, it's very unlikely that they'll be able to afford private schools for their children either. Brilliant! You've created a permanent underclass that don't have a hope in hell of ever moving up. Even less than they do now.

Under your utopia, these people would have no access to healthcare and no safety net. If they get fired or get sick, there's a real possiblity that they'd lose whatever homes they have and then have to eat out of the garbage cans of their betters just to survive. Of course, now that you've destroyed Well-fare, there's a good possiblity that they'd have to do that anyway, even with jobs. The diabled would starve, as you've also destroyed disability payments, and these people would be unable to get jobs in the first place.

But hey, none of those people matter because they don't have any money, right?

[Lusankya]

Sure, that probably includes schools, but private schools are better anyway, and don't cost the government anything.

Yes they do. At least, they do in your country. While some private schools are capable of supporting themselves because they have investments, many others rely on government funding.

Interestingly, the schools that fall into the former category are mostly boys-only, while girls-only schools almost all fall into the latter category. But I guess that if someone wanted an education, then they wouldn't have been silly enough to be born a girl, am I right?

[Simon_Jester]

Clearly, the poster that thinks that the only good use for tax money is the military and law enforcement doesn't drive. After all, what does he think pays for road maintanence?

Umm... Robot Jesus?

And what happens to the children whose parents just can't afford private schools? Do they just not get an education? Do they get to spend their lives as janitors, cleaners, and fast food workers as those are almost the only jobs you can get with no education?

Of course, once those children grow up and have children of their own, it's very unlikely that they'll be able to afford private schools for their children either. Brilliant! You've created a permanent underclass that don't have a hope in hell of ever moving up. Even less than they do now.

Under your utopia, these people would have no access to healthcare and no safety net. If they get fired or get sick, there's a real possiblity that they'd lose whatever homes they have and then have to eat out of the garbage cans of their betters just to survive. Of course, now that you've destroyed Well-fare, there's a good possiblity that they'd have to do that anyway, even with jobs. The diabled would starve, as you've also destroyed disability payments, and these people would be unable to get jobs in the first place.

But hey, none of those people matter because they don't have any money, right?

Actually, what I think happens at this point is that they storm the Bastille- they riot, trying to loot the houses of whatever rich people they can get their hands on. Classically the logical response is to deploy the army to shoot the rioters and kill a few tens of thousands of peasants to discourage the others... but that doesn't work well here, because joining the army is going to be one of the main ways to get a steady income for the lower class in this society. Much of the army will sympathize more with the rioters than with the government... at which point we get a socialist revolution.

Genius move, Jonson.