Principia Discordia

I live with my head in a hole in the ground. Please help me understand the mindset of a tea party member. I want to understand what it feels like to think like a tea party supporter. I ask because I have absolutely no empathy for them. For example, how is the idea that all people should have access to health care a worse idea than the alternative that the quality of one's health care should be proportional to one's income? The gay thing and the abortion thing are religious nonsense, and the immigration thing is racism, but I really struggle with the socialism thing. The only reasonable solution I can come up with is that they are fucking morons. How do I move forward with this model? If I'm surrounded by morons, why can't I work that to my advantage? Because I am not an isolated individual, but a part of something bigger -a pack of morons. I have only one reaction to political discussion in the U.S. -fear. Is there an alternative? Is there a way to find common ground with these people?

Sorry to go the easy way out but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Quote from: Phlogiston Merriweather on September 14, 2011, 01:19:12 AM
I live with my head in a hole in the ground. Please help me understand the mindset of a tea party member. I want to understand what it feels like to think like a tea party supporter. I ask because I have absolutely no empathy for them. For example, how is the idea that all people should have access to health care a worse idea than the alternative that the quality of one's health care should be proportional to one's income? The gay thing and the abortion thing are religious nonsense, and the immigration thing is racism, but I really struggle with the socialism thing. The only reasonable solution I can come up with is that they are fucking morons. How do I move forward with this model? If I'm surrounded by morons, why can't I work that to my advantage? Because I am not an isolated individual, but a part of something bigger -a pack of morons. I have only one reaction to political discussion in the U.S. -fear. Is there an alternative? Is there a way to find common ground with these people?

Easy.  Stand up.

Now, bend at the waist.  Further.  A little more...

Now, shove your head so far up your own ass that you can see daylight.

Got it?  That's it...

They are people who know enough about how fucked the US is to know that they ought to be angry, but they don't understand the who or how or why of it, so they don't know exactly what to be angry about, and they believe everything they watch on a news channel that misdirects their anger away from those who are causing all the shit, and projects it onto "socialists", deadbeat homeowners, and illegal immigrants.

Hold on a sec, let me get into character...

:cheney: :bankster: :perry:
:rush: :oilpig: :mullet: :mccain:
:teabagger1:


Socialism is bad because that means lazy people will take the money you worked hard for.  Eventually, no one will work anymore because they expect someone else to do it, and the economy will collapse.

Socialism is also bad because it implies regulation of business -- and regulations are bad because it impedes the free market system, which is the best system for self-correcting bad behavior.




How'd I do?

Because people worked hard for their wealth, and so have deserved healthcare.

If someone doesn't work hard, what are they doing instead?  Leeching off their family, their friends and, ultimately, the state.  Which means our taxes.  Taxes are basically theft anyway, but they serve some basic purposes, like paying for the military, the CIA and police.  Oh, and roads.  But the more leeches there are, the more taxes rise.

If you have a basic system of welfare, an entirely socialist concept, then the incentives for hard work are decreased.  Less people will be incentivized to work, meaning there will be ever increasing taxes on a steadily decreasing tax base.  The Soviet Union tried such distributive economics, and look at what happened to them.  Economic malaise, corruption, dictatorship and collapse. 

Furthermore, welfare is fundamentally unproductive economic activity.  Look at how Obama rewards his deadbeat, unemployed supporters.  He is using the bottom 25% as a weapon against the rest of the nation.  There is no reason you cannot succeed in America, if you work hard, unless government interferes.  But these people want government to interfere, because they cannot handle economic freedom.  They want a Big Daddy government, giving them cash handouts they don't have to work for, when they could have a lot better quality of living if they just bothered to get a job. 

Why do parasites like that deserve any of our sympathy whatsoever?

What's funny is when they whine and complain about class warfare but all the while are completely blind to the fact their leaders are using them as pawns in class warfare.  

You forgot that we have to give more money and tax breaks to rich people and corporations, because they'll use it to make jobs.  (Yeah, it hasn't worked so far, but that's just because we need to give them MOAR, oh, and we'll give everyone jobs if you get rid of the minimum wage and we can pay a dollar an hour...)

Quote from: Luna on September 14, 2011, 01:44:46 PM
You forgot that we have to give more money and tax breaks to rich people and corporations, because they'll use it to make jobs.  (Yeah, it hasn't worked so far, but that's just because we need to give them MOAR, oh, and we'll give everyone jobs if you get rid of the minimum wage and we can pay a dollar an hour...)

Also need to get rid of regulations and labor unions.

Actually, while the Tea Party as a rule supports lower taxs for corporations and large employers (increasing their economic resources invariably increases their potential economic activity, which is more likely to produce jobs than putting people on welfare forever and ever without employment plans), it does not support handouts for corporations and banks, even though those handouts are less offensive than welfare, because it goes towards companies and groups which produce more wealth, which ultimately makes us all wealthier.

Regulations and minimum wage are a form of raising barriers to the possibility of employment, putting it beyond the means of some employers.  It also encourages inflation, by setting certain minimal standards of pay, whereas if pay were more flexible, prices would drop as production costs dropped and sellers sought to appeal to less high-earning buyers.

As for unions...don't you socialists ever learn from history?  Unions are nothing but fronts for corrupt mobsters and gangsters.  Their policies on minimum wage and other conditions also lead to what was described above.

Cain, you're scary, sometimes.

lol, asking people here to explain the Tea Party is a bit like going to "insert conservative web forum here" and asking them to explain the people and thinking behind say...  MoveOn.org.  Can't think of a better example at the moment.

There's not a single person here who identifies with the Tea Party, or if there is they don't post about it much.

I can tell you that it began as a splintering from Neo-conservative, Bill Kristol, George Bush, Lindsay Graham style Republicanism.  Before the Tea Party began to emerge as a group if there was an anti-war wing of the Republican party, it was so muted and drowned out by decades of neo-conservative commentating and indoctrination so as to be nearly mute.  To be conservative and anti-war was anethema and to be shouted down.  Not so anymore.  Except for Israel.  War in support of Israel is one of the few things the Democrats, Neo-Conservative Republicans, and the Tea Party all (publicly anyway) agree on.

Basically, the big government conservatism of the type that's dominated since Barry Goldwater's famous ass kicking was getting enough backlash internally to cause a schism.  It's been called paleo-conservatism, and I suppose that label fits as well as any.  Classical liberalism also fits.

As to what you see now, what it's become..  It appears to have been nearly completely co-opted by enough religious types to completely dilute the social libertarian streak it started with (the primary reason I divorced myself from any association with it after the 2008 election) and enough big money interests are involved to shape their message on a national level.

It is still mostly split from the neo-conservative thought (neo-conservatives would tell you it's a split from "intellectual conservatism") and that may be it's most redeeming quality.  

I would suggest going to a website that Tea Party identifiers frequent and asking them what they stand for and to help you understand, if that's really what you're interested in doing.

[ETA] Cain, as always, will provide an extremely thoughtful response, even though he doesn't necessarily agree with the thinking.  Most everyone else will take pot shots.  Because it's funny.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:21:48 PM
lol, asking people here to explain the Tea Party is a bit like going to "insert conservative web forum here" and asking them to explain the people and thinking behind say...  MoveOn.org.  Can't think of a better example at the moment.

:lulz:

Those poor racist bastards.  We should really stop dogging on them.

:lulz:

Also, we're JUST LIKE moveon.org.

:lulz:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:27:39 PM
Also, we're JUST LIKE moveon.org.

:lulz:

It was an analogy, not a correlation, asshole.  You wouldn't go to a christian web forum for an explanation of Discordianism.

But feel free to continue to generalize about..  well, about everything.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:33:44 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:27:39 PM
Also, we're JUST LIKE moveon.org.

:lulz:

It was an analogy, not a correlation, asshole.  You wouldn't go to a christian web forum for an explanation of Discordianism.

But feel free to continue to generalize about..  well, about everything.

:lord:

Sure.  And why not ask bigots if bigotry is actually what they're all about?

Quote from: Phlogiston Merriweather on September 14, 2011, 01:19:12 AM
I live with my head in a hole in the ground. Please help me understand the mindset of a tea party member. I want to understand what it feels like to think like a tea party supporter.

Read Ayn Rand, then Hal Turner, then hit yourself in the head with a hammer while chewing paint chips.

 :lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:

Oh the irony, it's biting.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
:lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:

Oh the irony, it's biting.

Explain it to me then, for I am hipster-deficient.

You have a captive audience.

Nice job on the talking points, Cain!
have you ever considered writing a political discourse in the form of a dialogue?
i'd pay money for that.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:39:11 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
:lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:

Oh the irony, it's biting.

Explain it to me then, for I am hipster-deficient.

You have a captive audience.

Explain what?  I did my best to answer his question as sincerely as possible.  You mentioned bigotry, which is ironic because there's quite a lot of that on display ITT, (granted, in a "humorous-through-ridicule" way) by any definition I've ever been familiar with.

The only other responses not showing obvious bias and disdain were Cain's.

Hey, let your opinions, biases, and intolerance about another group of people shine, I say.  It's honesty, at least.  But don't try and color it another shade of what it clearly is, and calling other bigots, bigots in order to help cover your own is pretty fucking recursive.

:popcorn:

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:53:14 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:39:11 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
:lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:

Oh the irony, it's biting.

Explain it to me then, for I am hipster-deficient.

You have a captive audience.

Explain what?  I did my best to answer his question as sincerely as possible.  You mentioned bigotry, which is ironic because there's quite a lot of that on display ITT, (granted, in a "humorous-through-ridicule" way) by any definition I've ever been familiar with.

The only other responses not showing obvious bias and disdain were Cain's.

Hey, let your opinions, biases, and intolerance about another group of people shine, I say.  It's honesty, at least.  But don't try and color it another shade of what it clearly is, and calling other bigots, bigots in order to help cover your own is pretty fucking recursive.

Wait.  Are you saying you need examples of tea party bigotry?  For real?  Because I'll be more than happy to post some.

And, yeah, I have an intolerance for bigotry.  That makes me a bigot ("other bigots")?  

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 02:58:19 PM
:popcorn:

STAND IN AWE OF MY BIGOTRY!  FOR DOGGING ON PEOPLE FOR HATING GAYS, BLACKS, AND MEXICANS, THAT'S WHAT MAKES A REAL BIGOT!  JUST ASK REP PETER KING!

:hitlerbanjo:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 02:58:19 PM
:popcorn:

Yes. Like watching Peewee Herman take on a lion.  :lulz:

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:02:22 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 02:58:19 PM
:popcorn:

Yes. Like watching Peewee Herman take on a lion.  :lulz:

Hang on a minute, here.  I'm honestly interested in how having a beef with bigots makes me a bigot.

I think DP might have confused "Bigotry" with "Bias".

Yes, I am biased against people who are bigots.

I wouldn't say that there's an equivalence, however.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:58:45 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:53:14 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:39:11 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
:lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:

Oh the irony, it's biting.

Explain it to me then, for I am hipster-deficient.

You have a captive audience.

Explain what?  I did my best to answer his question as sincerely as possible.  You mentioned bigotry, which is ironic because there's quite a lot of that on display ITT, (granted, in a "humorous-through-ridicule" way) by any definition I've ever been familiar with.

The only other responses not showing obvious bias and disdain were Cain's.

Hey, let your opinions, biases, and intolerance about another group of people shine, I say.  It's honesty, at least.  But don't try and color it another shade of what it clearly is, and calling other bigots, bigots in order to help cover your own is pretty fucking recursive.

Wait.  Are you saying you need examples of tea party bigotry?  For real?  Because I'll be more than happy to post some.

And, yeah, I have an intolerance for bigotry.  That makes me a bigot ("other bigots")?  

Nope, I'm sure there are plenty of bigots in the Tea Party.  Statistically, there would have to be.  It is a bit (quite a bit) of a generalization to say the entire group can be painted with a big 'ol brush called bigotry.

I am saying that your own bigotry toward the Tea Party, Republicans and Conservatives doesn't stem solely from your intolerance for bigots.  I'm saying you're attempting to cover your own with accusations of your own.

But hey, I'm not saying anything you don't already know and state regularly.  You're a hate machine and it's your job to be.  Hell, it's part of your charm.

You're like a big 'ol fuzzy teddy bear.

Filled with razors.


(I'm pretty shit for analogy's today, but then I'm supposed to be working atm.)

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:08:20 PM
I think DP might have confused "Bigotry" with "Bias".

Yes, I am biased against people who are bigots.

I wouldn't say that there's an equivalence, however.

Yeah, I'm not ashamed of being biased, if the bias was generated by an honestly appraised set of stimuli.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:08:20 PM
I think DP might have confused "Bigotry" with "Bias".

Yes, I am biased against people who are bigots.

I wouldn't say that there's an equivalence, however.

I meant in this manner:

QuoteWorld English Dictionary
bigot  (ˈbɪɡət) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
   a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:08:42 PM
I am saying that your own bigotry toward the Tea Party, Republicans and Conservatives doesn't stem solely from your intolerance for bigots.

No, I have a problem with stupidity, as well.

There are some conservatives that I actually have quite a bit of respect for...PJ O'Rourke is one example.  When he has something to say, I generally tend to give him a fair hearing.  Sarah Palin, Peter King, and Rand Paul, not so much.

But, please, explain to me:  How does abhoring a political outlook, and/or a collection of what's basically self-disenfranchized KKK members put me on the same level as, say, Lester Maddox?

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:10:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:08:20 PM
I think DP might have confused "Bigotry" with "Bias".

Yes, I am biased against people who are bigots.

I wouldn't say that there's an equivalence, however.

I meant in this manner:

QuoteWorld English Dictionary
bigot  (ˈbɪɡət) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
   a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

But I hate the dems, too.  Does that mean I'm bigoted against sissies?

oh, and:

GOD DAMNIT DOK HAVE YOU GOT ME DEFENDING THE FUCKING TEA PARTY!?!?!

:madbanana:

I fucking hate you.

Incidentally, that means that hating Nazism makes you a bigot.

Do you hate Nazism, DP?

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:14:11 PM
oh, and:

GOD DAMNIT DOK HAVE YOU GOT ME DEFENDING THE FUCKING TEA PARTY!?!?!

:madbanana:

I fucking hate you.

Don't blame me, you were doing it before I showed up.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:10:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:08:20 PM
I think DP might have confused "Bigotry" with "Bias".

Yes, I am biased against people who are bigots.

I wouldn't say that there's an equivalence, however.

I meant in this manner:

QuoteWorld English Dictionary
bigot  (ˈbɪɡət) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
   a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Bolded for the applicable word here.  I am biased against a bigoted idea, which is other than my own.

I am not biased against a non-bigoted idea, if it is other than my own.

Any =/= some.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:18:15 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:10:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:08:20 PM
I think DP might have confused "Bigotry" with "Bias".

Yes, I am biased against people who are bigots.

I wouldn't say that there's an equivalence, however.

I meant in this manner:

QuoteWorld English Dictionary
bigot  (ˈbɪɡət) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
   a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Bolded for the applicable word here.  I am biased against a bigoted idea, which is other than my own.

I am not biased against a non-bigoted idea, if it is other than my own.

Any =/= some.

Nonsense.  If you stand against fascism, you kiss David Duke.

If you hate Rush Limbaugh, you are Rush Limbaugh.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:08:42 PM
Nope, I'm sure there are plenty of bigots in the Tea Party.  Statistically, there would have to be.  It is a bit (quite a bit) of a generalization to say the entire group

(I'm pretty shit for analogy's today, but then I'm supposed to be working atm.)

How is it a generalization to say a group that you have to be a bigot to be accepted in is 100% bigots?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:20:26 PM
If you hate Rush Limbaugh, you are Rush Limbaugh.

If you didn't approve of George Wallace, you run a death camp for Jews.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 03:12:34 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:08:42 PM
I am saying that your own bigotry toward the Tea Party, Republicans and Conservatives doesn't stem solely from your intolerance for bigots.

No, I have a problem with stupidity, as well.

There are some conservatives that I actually have quite a bit of respect for...PJ O'Rourke is one example.  When he has something to say, I generally tend to give him a fair hearing.  Sarah Palin, Peter King, and Rand Paul, not so much.

But, please, explain to me:  How does abhorring a political outlook, and/or a collection of what's basically self-disenfranchized KKK members put me on the same level as, say, Lester Maddox?

I'm not comparing you to Lester Maddox or anyone else for that matter.  I'm just calling it like I see it.

It occurs to me that people can show with varying degrees of bigotry.  But it's still bigotry.

Bias, to my understanding, deals primarily with preconceived notions.  Yours aren't preconceived but built on knowledge and your own reasoning.  But if your reasoning leads you to intolerance of someone else's beliefs and opinions, it is bigotry.

If I'm misunderstanding these concepts or explaining them incorrectly, please correct me.  I wouldn't want to be walking around with this in my head all wrong.

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:20:33 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:08:42 PM
Nope, I'm sure there are plenty of bigots in the Tea Party.  Statistically, there would have to be.  It is a bit (quite a bit) of a generalization to say the entire group

(I'm pretty shit for analogy's today, but then I'm supposed to be working atm.)

How is it a generalization to say a group that you have to be a bigot to be accepted in is 100% bigots?

Because people who believe in diversity are the real bigots.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:22:31 PM
I'm not comparing you to Lester Maddox or anyone else for that matter.  I'm just calling it like I see it.

It occurs to me that people can show with varying degrees of bigotry.  But it's still bigotry.

Bias, to my understanding, deals primarily with preconceived notions.  Yours aren't preconceived but built on knowledge and your own reasoning.  But if your reasoning leads you to intolerance of someone else's beliefs and opinions, it is bigotry.

If I'm misunderstanding these concepts or explaining them incorrectly, please correct me.  I wouldn't want to be walking around with this in my head all wrong.

LMNO already corrected you.  You ignored it.

And I am a bigot.   :lulz:

Dok,
Loves when people do that shit.

BRB.  I have to go to a meeting, in which I will express disdain for people who aren't just like me.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:18:15 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:10:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:08:20 PM
I think DP might have confused "Bigotry" with "Bias".

Yes, I am biased against people who are bigots.

I wouldn't say that there's an equivalence, however.

I meant in this manner:

QuoteWorld English Dictionary
bigot  (ˈbɪɡət) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
   a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Bolded for the applicable word here.  I am biased against a bigoted idea, which is other than my own.

I am not biased against a non-bigoted idea, if it is other than my own.

Any =/= some.

Well as it happens, your reply didn't strike me as bigoted, and I wasn't calling you one, but I understand how it goes around here when there's blood in the water.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 03:23:41 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:22:31 PM
I'm not comparing you to Lester Maddox or anyone else for that matter.  I'm just calling it like I see it.

It occurs to me that people can show with varying degrees of bigotry.  But it's still bigotry.

Bias, to my understanding, deals primarily with preconceived notions.  Yours aren't preconceived but built on knowledge and your own reasoning.  But if your reasoning leads you to intolerance of someone else's beliefs and opinions, it is bigotry.

If I'm misunderstanding these concepts or explaining them incorrectly, please correct me.  I wouldn't want to be walking around with this in my head all wrong.

LMNO already corrected you.  You ignored it.

And I am a bigot.   :lulz:

Dok,
Loves when people do that shit.

Sorry, I can't keep up with you guys fast enough when you're double teaming me.

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:20:33 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:08:42 PM
Nope, I'm sure there are plenty of bigots in the Tea Party.  Statistically, there would have to be.  It is a bit (quite a bit) of a generalization to say the entire group

(I'm pretty shit for analogy's today, but then I'm supposed to be working atm.)

How is it a generalization to say a group that you have to be a bigot to be accepted in is 100% bigots?

But, you don't.  You just think you do, because that's what you want to believe, because it makes it easier for you to dismiss anything else that might be said by anyone identifying with them.

That happens a LOT with people. 

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:27:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:18:15 PM
Any =/= some.

Well as it happens, your reply didn't strike me as bigoted, and I wasn't calling you one, but I understand how it goes around here when there's blood in the water.

Well, I do feel similarly.  And I was pretty sure you were getting your terms crossed, so I wanted to help.  Also, it's really funny to see you call Dok a bigot.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:22:31 PM

Sorry, I can't keep up with you guys fast enough when you're double teaming me.

:lmnuendo:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 03:26:50 PM
BRB.  I have to go to a meeting, in which I will express disdain for people who aren't just like me.

Yeah, I really need to go back to work on these damn boxes.  I'll try and drop in occasionaly.

LMNO, regarding your explanation of the definition and my reply that Dok dismissed because I didn't type it fast enough.  Am I getting it wrong and if so, where?

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:30:24 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:20:33 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:08:42 PM
Nope, I'm sure there are plenty of bigots in the Tea Party.  Statistically, there would have to be.  It is a bit (quite a bit) of a generalization to say the entire group

(I'm pretty shit for analogy's today, but then I'm supposed to be working atm.)

How is it a generalization to say a group that you have to be a bigot to be accepted in is 100% bigots?

But, you don't.  You just think you do, because that's what you want to believe, because it makes it easier for you to dismiss anything else that might be said by anyone identifying with them.

That happens a LOT with people. 

DP. have you actually looked at their stance on immigration or religion?

Or Muslims, or a fuckload of other things...

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:33:31 PM

LMNO, regarding your explanation of the definition and my reply that Dok dismissed because I didn't type it fast enough.  Am I getting it wrong and if so, where?

I typed this before I saw your question, so my next post will address that.

DP, you're wading into semantic territory here.

Anyone can call themselves a Teabagger.

There are several platforms that Teabaggers hold dear.  Among them are xenophobia, homophobia, creationism, and certain irrational beliefs about the government and the free market.

A person can say, "I am a Teabagger, but I am not a racist," but if you choose to wear the label, you choose to tacitly wear the beliefs of the majorty of the group.

It would be like saying, "I am a Catholic, but I don't recognize the rite of baptism."  

I have met people who say they like some of the Teabagger platforms, but don't want to be associated with the fuckheads.  That's fine, sort of, but the point is that they do not identify as a teabagger, because they disagree with parts of it.

So, when we say, "Teabaggers are racist, bigoted nutbags", we refer to those who espouse the tea party platform in all it's hateful glory.

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:36:46 PM
Or Muslims, or a fuckload of other things...

You'll find people with those beliefs in quite a few political blocks other than the Tea Party.  The religiously intolerant are not somehow relegated only to the Tea Party.  Neither are immigration policies based entirely on racism, but ARE certainly very based in nationalism.

But ok, which Tea Party organization are you talking about, and please to provide links to support these positions.

DP, the inclusion of "any" in the definiton of "bigot" gives it a very solipsistic feel.  That is, you are intolerant of any other belief out there.

"All of my beliefs are 100% correct.  All others are THE DEVIL."

What we're expressing is more specific than that.

"Bigotry is FUCKED.  But if you have different, non-bigoted beliefs than I do, that's cool."

See the difference?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:45:57 PM
DP, the inclusion of "any" in the definiton of "bigot" gives it a very solipsistic feel.  That is, you are intolerant of any other belief out there.

"All of my beliefs are 100% correct.  All others are THE DEVIL."

What we're expressing is more specific than that.

"Bigotry is FUCKED.  But if you have different, non-bigoted beliefs than I do, that's cool."

See the difference?

Very clear, thank you.

Of course, now I've just ruined all of Dok's fun for the day...



Sorry, Dok.  I could call you names, if you'd like.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:44:30 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:36:46 PM
Or Muslims, or a fuckload of other things...

You'll find people with those beliefs in quite a few political blocks other than the Tea Party.

True, and those people suck too. But a racist person who supports moveon, for example, is a fluke, while this shit is what DEFINES the Tea Party.

QuoteThe religiously intolerant are not somehow relegated only to the Tea Party.  Neither are immigration policies based entirely on racism, but ARE certainly very based in nationalism.

Compare the Mexican border to the Canadian border. Racism.

Nationalism is bad too, though, it's for nazis.

QuoteBut ok, which Tea Party organization are you talking about, and please to provide links to support these positions.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tea+party+bigotry

You only need to look at the policy aims and statements of Tea Partiers to surmise there is at least some level of bigotry or prejudice at play.  When they say they want to take their country back....who are they taking it back from?  Who took it from them?  The Black President.  The Black President, whom many Tea Party activists will criticize for "apologizing to our enemies", for building Big Government to help the poor (who are made up of significant numbers of minorities)....

But then....you peel back another layer of the Onion, and we have this.  That many of them have a strong social conservative streak.  That they actually want Big Government, they just want less of it in the checkbook and more of it in the bedroom.  This entails discrimination of homosexual Americans.  Poor, pregnant women (again made up of a large number of minorities)

If you really look at the body of their policy positions, it really does begin to paint a very compelling portrait of a movement that wants to protect their idea of America for their idea of True Americans.  The poor minorities are not part of that, the gays and lesbians are not a part of that, Muslims are not a part of that, college students are not a part of that, old people who can't afford healthcare are not a part of that.  

The WASPiness of this movement is plainly obvious to anyone.  To call this out is not bigotry.  It is honest and forthright policy analysis.  Their policies are only good for certain Americans, they are BAD for all Americans.  

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:27:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:18:15 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:10:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:08:20 PM
I think DP might have confused "Bigotry" with "Bias".

Yes, I am biased against people who are bigots.

I wouldn't say that there's an equivalence, however.

I meant in this manner:

QuoteWorld English Dictionary
bigot  (ˈbɪɡət) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
   a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Bolded for the applicable word here.  I am biased against a bigoted idea, which is other than my own.

I am not biased against a non-bigoted idea, if it is other than my own.

Any =/= some.

Well as it happens, your reply didn't strike me as bigoted, and I wasn't calling you one, but I understand how it goes around here when there's blood in the water.

Wasn't his point.  The definition is "any", not "a".

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 14, 2011, 03:55:34 PM
Of course, now I've just ruined all of Dok's fun for the day...



Sorry, Dok.  I could call you names, if you'd like.

:madbanana:

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:56:21 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:44:30 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:36:46 PM
Or Muslims, or a fuckload of other things...

You'll find people with those beliefs in quite a few political blocks other than the Tea Party.

True, and those people suck too. But a racist person who supports moveon, for example, is a fluke, while this shit is what DEFINES the Tea Party.

QuoteThe religiously intolerant are not somehow relegated only to the Tea Party.  Neither are immigration policies based entirely on racism, but ARE certainly very based in nationalism.

Compare the Mexican border to the Canadian border. Racism.

Nationalism is bad too, though, it's for nazis.

QuoteBut ok, which Tea Party organization are you talking about, and please to provide links to support these positions.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tea+party+bigotry

If Canadians were impoverished and pouring across the border, I argue that you'd see a similar reaction.  Granted, maybe not with the same fervor.  But difference of language goes a lot more to engender bias against another nationality than it gets credit for in popular discourse.  Just look at Quebecois vs the rest of Canada.  Same skin colors, but a bias against based in linguistic differences.  Of course there are racists who judge only on skin color, but when clear communication can occur between people you find communities where skin color is less of an issue.  

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 04:09:15 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:56:21 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:44:30 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:36:46 PM
Or Muslims, or a fuckload of other things...

You'll find people with those beliefs in quite a few political blocks other than the Tea Party.

True, and those people suck too. But a racist person who supports moveon, for example, is a fluke, while this shit is what DEFINES the Tea Party.

QuoteThe religiously intolerant are not somehow relegated only to the Tea Party.  Neither are immigration policies based entirely on racism, but ARE certainly very based in nationalism.

Compare the Mexican border to the Canadian border. Racism.

Nationalism is bad too, though, it's for nazis.

QuoteBut ok, which Tea Party organization are you talking about, and please to provide links to support these positions.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tea+party+bigotry

If Canadians were impoverished and pouring across the border, I argue that you'd see a similar reaction.  Granted, maybe not with the same fervor.  But similarity of language goes a lot more to engender bias against another nationality than it gets credit for in popular discourse.  Just look at Quebecois vs the rest of Canada.  Same skin colors, but a bias against based in linguistic differences.  Of course there are racists who judge only on skin color, but when clear communication can occur between people you find communities where skin color is less of an issue.  

Normally, I'd buy that explanation, but I live in the state whose teabaggers passed SB1072.   :lulz:

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 04:09:15 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:56:21 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:44:30 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:36:46 PM
Or Muslims, or a fuckload of other things...

You'll find people with those beliefs in quite a few political blocks other than the Tea Party.

True, and those people suck too. But a racist person who supports moveon, for example, is a fluke, while this shit is what DEFINES the Tea Party.

QuoteThe religiously intolerant are not somehow relegated only to the Tea Party.  Neither are immigration policies based entirely on racism, but ARE certainly very based in nationalism.

Compare the Mexican border to the Canadian border. Racism.

Nationalism is bad too, though, it's for nazis.

QuoteBut ok, which Tea Party organization are you talking about, and please to provide links to support these positions.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tea+party+bigotry

If Canadians were impoverished and pouring across the border, I argue that you'd see a similar reaction.  Granted, maybe not with the same fervor.  But difference of language goes a lot more to engender bias against another nationality than it gets credit for in popular discourse.  Just look at Quebecois vs the rest of Canada.  Same skin colors, but a bias against based in linguistic differences.  Of course there are racists who judge only on skin color, but when clear communication can occur between people you find communities where skin color is less of an issue.  

There you go.

If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody ..."

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

Quote from: Hawk on September 14, 2011, 04:15:17 PM
If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody ..."

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

You guys all know that Ron Paul allowed his closest aid to die due to lack of insurance, right?

Here we go:

http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured

On the side note about the Tea Party as a group of bigots, aside from the thinly veiled racism, there is zero tolerance for any other political views. Anything to the left of them, including "Centrist" and moderate Right views, are automatically socialism. There's fucking socialism everywhere trying to give your taxes to the poor people (newsflash- that's the majority people paying the majority of the taxes). Socialism socialism socialism. It's a boogey-man. These fuckos have no idea what socialism is, or realize that the United States has been a mixed economy for almost a century now anyway.

And they've latched onto the whole idea that since Nazism is National Socialism, that some how, all socialists must be Nazis. Hitler instituted Universal Healthcare just like that goddamn Socialist Obama is trying to do, never mind that it's not really Universal Healthcare, but compulsory insurance. That means he's a Nazi who hates white people. White people are getting discriminated against by all these blacks and Latinos. I mean, they offer Spanish language options whenever you call anything. That's oppression!

So, @OP- the mind set of a Teabagger is fear. Plain and simple. It's the only way they know how to think.

I refuse to fear them or the consequences of them coming to power. I'd prefer fight over flight here. I prefer not to match their mentality. They think that liberals are afraid of them (because they only understand things in the context of fear). I don't want them to be right even about that.


Fear has always been a part of the conservative mind set. By definition conservativism seeks to limit change. If you are a conservative, you are what would be described in The Illuminatus trilogy as Homo neophobus.

Liberals, by definition, seek to maximize freedom, even if it demands the passing of new legislation.

I'm still up for that island......

:sad:


Just sayin.....

Quote from: Khara on September 14, 2011, 04:35:02 PM
I'm still up for that island......

:sad:


Just sayin.....

I'm up for attacking it with longboats.

Flying longboats with energy weapons. We have to be futuristic about this.

I feel like a sitting duck staying in this country and I'm too broke to leave.
Ni flight means I have to fight.

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 04:47:54 PM
I feel like a sitting duck staying in this country and I'm too broke to leave.
Ni flight means I have to fight.

Its not in their interest to win the presidency. They'll discredit themselves very quickly if they do.

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 14, 2011, 04:51:25 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 04:47:54 PM
I feel like a sitting duck staying in this country and I'm too broke to leave.
Ni flight means I have to fight.

Its not in their interest to win the presidency. They'll discredit themselves very quickly if they do.

That's never stopped them before. They discredit themselves every time they open their mouth.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:44:30 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 03:36:46 PM
Or Muslims, or a fuckload of other things...

You'll find people with those beliefs in quite a few political blocks other than the Tea Party.  The religiously intolerant are not somehow relegated only to the Tea Party.  Neither are immigration policies based entirely on racism, but ARE certainly very based in nationalism.

But ok, which Tea Party organization are you talking about, and please to provide links to support these positions.

    In a broad study  of adults in Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and California conducted between February and March, the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race, and Sexuality (WISER) asked a number of questions about "racial resentment" — such as whether blacks don't try hard enough or have gotten more than they deserve. Conservatives are 23 percent more likely to be racially resentful, and Republicans 15 percent more likely than Democrats. However, the institute found that this racial sentiment isn't simply a byproduct of white conservativism:

       [E]ven as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment.

    It is untrue, as political commentator Dave Weigel argues, that racism in the Tea Party is merely reflective of its conservatism. The WISER study found that compared to other conservatives, Tea Party supporters are:

       – 25 percent more likely to have racial resentment.

       – 27 percent more likely to support racial profiling.

       – 28 percent more likely to support indefinite detention without charges.

    Tea Party supporters are also significantly more likely to hold racial stereotypes, with a majority believing blacks are not hard-working, intelligent, or trustworthy. Their fear of others transcends race, however — the WISER study found that a majority of tea party adherents distrust Latinos, Asians, and other whites as well.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/09/891507/-Tea-Party-Bigotry-Not-just-for-the-Sign-Carriers-Anymore

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 04:53:19 PM

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 14, 2011, 04:51:25 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 04:47:54 PM
I feel like a sitting duck staying in this country and I'm too broke to leave.
Ni flight means I have to fight.

Its not in their interest to win the presidency. They'll discredit themselves very quickly if they do.

That's never stopped them before. They discredit themselves every time they open their mouth.

Point, but it's easy to ignore them as a fringe group until the do take something central like the presidency. Considering that quite a few of them don't really seem to understand that the President doesn't have the vast powers they think he does, they wouldn't be particularly capable of handling the job.

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 14, 2011, 04:57:59 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 04:53:19 PM

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 14, 2011, 04:51:25 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 04:47:54 PM
I feel like a sitting duck staying in this country and I'm too broke to leave.
Ni flight means I have to fight.

Its not in their interest to win the presidency. They'll discredit themselves very quickly if they do.

That's never stopped them before. They discredit themselves every time they open their mouth.

Point, but it's easy to ignore them as a fringe group until the do take something central like the presidency. Considering that quite a few of them don't really seem to understand that the President doesn't have the vast powers they think he does, they wouldn't be particularly capable of handling the job.

You, sir, are a hopeless fucking optimist.  Of course they're trying for the presidency.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 05:00:06 PM

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 14, 2011, 04:57:59 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 04:53:19 PM

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 14, 2011, 04:51:25 PM

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 14, 2011, 04:47:54 PM
I feel like a sitting duck staying in this country and I'm too broke to leave.
Ni flight means I have to fight.

Its not in their interest to win the presidency. They'll discredit themselves very quickly if they do.

That's never stopped them before. They discredit themselves every time they open their mouth.

Point, but it's easy to ignore them as a fringe group until the do take something central like the presidency. Considering that quite a few of them don't really seem to understand that the President doesn't have the vast powers they think he does, they wouldn't be particularly capable of handling the job.

You, sir, are a hopeless fucking optimist.  Of course they're trying for the presidency.

I agree. I'm merely saying its not in their best interest.

Dubya and his cronies don't seem to be hurting.  :x

I think it is willfully ignorant to deny a connection between racism and the tea party  movement.  (and i don't think anyone here has actually done that)

just thinking out loud here...
it seems to me that the defining aspect of the tea party is a reaction to what is seen as overly intrusive govt.
the sentiment of smaller govt. seems linked to glorifying self-reliance.  self-reliance can be seen to have overlap with nationalism->isolationism-> xenophobia-> and ultimately, separatism/racism.  So although racism is not supposed to be a defining aspect of the movement, the racists are going to cling to the group and poison it.  In fact, it seems to me that any group that advocates smaller govt. will have to deal with this sequence of associations...

Quote from: Iptuous on September 14, 2011, 05:14:20 PM
I think it is willfully ignorant to deny a connection between racism and the tea party  movement.  (and i don't think anyone here has actually done that)

just thinking out loud here...
it seems to me that the defining aspect of the tea party is a reaction to what is seen as overly intrusive govt.
the sentiment of smaller govt. seems linked to glorifying self-reliance.  self-reliance can be seen to have overlap with nationalism->isolationism-> xenophobia-> and ultimately, separatism/racism.  So although racism is not supposed to be a defining aspect of the movement, the racists are going to cling to the group and poison it.  In fact, it seems to me that any group that advocates smaller govt. will have to deal with this sequence of associations...

It was all engineered, y'know. RS called it last year http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 03:08:42 PM
Nope, I'm sure there are plenty of bigots in the Tea Party.  Statistically, there would have to be.  It is a bit (quite a bit) of a generalization to say the entire group can be painted with a big 'ol brush called bigotry.

Of course there are bigots in every party. The difference with other parties is that they try to keep crazy racist ol' grandpa to the fringes. The Tea Party keep promoting their bigots (http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/politics/racial-slur-by-tea-party-leader-hits-home-647303.html) to the head office (http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader).

Quote from: Iptuous on September 14, 2011, 02:41:31 PM
Nice job on the talking points, Cain!
have you ever considered writing a political discourse in the form of a dialogue?
i'd pay money for that.

I hadn't actually, until now.

And thanks.  I make it a point to be able to at least semi-convincingly argue for any given political ideology or policy that is going.  As it goes, libertarian-esque rhetoric is easier than most for me, since I spent several months acting as semi-unofficial Opposition Research for the local Tories, when I went to Uni, and my cover was as a libertarian Tory.  Those were fun days...I was playing a blinder on everyone.

Five and a half pages and no one's mentioned the tea party's anti-intellectualism? Or their eagerness to ban and burn books that don't coincide with their personal beliefs? I'm disappointed PD.  :|

The OP actually specifically mentioned the socialism thing.

But, you know, thanks for taking the time to show your disdain for us.  Maybe next time you'll use that to read the OP more carefully?

Quote from: Da6s on September 15, 2011, 01:43:25 PM
Five and a half pages and no one's mentioned the tea party's anti-intellectualism? Or their eagerness to ban and burn books that don't coincide with their personal beliefs? I'm disappointed PD.  :|

Your approval is not our concern.

Yeah, instead of bitching about it, why the hell didn't he just fill our vast shortcomings?

Quote from: Hawk on September 15, 2011, 04:45:58 PM
Yeah, instead of bitching about it, why the hell didn't he just fill our vast shortcomings?

Because it's Da6s.  He's more of an idea man.

:lulz:

 :lulz:

To paraphrase: Shit in one hand and have ideas in the other and see which one fills up first.  :lulz:

Thanks for the help. I've read Ayn Rand. I have a hard time not thinking that it was written tongue in cheek, like a modest proposal.

Let me try to channel my inner tea party member.

I work hard, but I don't get everything I deserve for this hard work, because there are lazy people mooching off me through taxes and other bullshit economic policies put in place by the looters. These lazy people want to enjoy the fruits of my labor. What they need is a fire lit under their asses. If they had to live in fear that they would wind up torn apart by wolves or die of exposure and the flu living in a cardboard box because no one is going to help them at all, then they would stop being lazy and get to work. This is because the world is ultimately just, and in the absence of economic interference, all hard workers will be rewarded with the best our modern technology has to offer. Nobody could ever end up poor despite working hard and being intelligent. The fact that I work so hard, and am reasonably intelligent, but lack an even nicer car and an even nicer place to live than the one I have is the result of lazy people taking my money to fund abortions -not because greedy people are raking in billions of dollars by profiting off a society that has well-educated, healthy, happy people and refusing to pay back into that society in order to keep it that way. I am self righteous. I do the right things, I live the right way, I follow the right rules. Other people don't -and they are the ones that should suffer. They should suffer. I want people to suffer, unless they follow the same damn rules I do. Suffering provides the necessary negative feedback to give us all a kick in the pants when we need it. The world would be a utopia if we all worked as hard as me and stopped trying to get something for nothing. Also, I at least moderately agree with or am not completely offended by the following ideas: Christianity right, other religions are wrong, gayness is wrong, abortions are wrong, many poor people are poor because they are lazy. My ideas may not be politically correct, but I know the difference between right and wrong. If you work hard and don't completely flaunt all morality by being a homo (which is just gross, what the fuck is wrong with you people?) or doing abortions (which kills babies, how is that not clear?) then every thing will work out for you (unless some baby killing homo takes what's yours).  

Okay. I think I've done it. The problem is, in order to think this way, I have to shut off my critical analysis facility and become intransigently sure of myself. I have to be completely obsessed with the fact that I deserve more than I have. I can't empathize at all with the poor black woman who has three kids and makes minimum wage and lives in a shitty neighborhood, or with her kids who can't read or write and don't have money for lunch, because she is mooching off of me with her food stamps. She deserves the situation she is in. Her kids deserve it too. Maybe they won't be so lazy and stupid when (if) they grow up because they will learn from their experience that only hard work gets you food. I can't accept the idea that we the people could vote to each pitch in a portion of our income to help those kids out. Only lazy people would think that way.  Nor can I accept the idea that they are in an impossible situation, lacking the same opportunities I was given at birth. I have to be completely ungrateful for all that has been given to me and insist that absolutely everything good that has ever happened to me in my life is the result of my deserving it. I deserve everything good that has or will ever happen to me, and everything bad is someone else's fault, because I am one of the good guys. I am on the right team, I believe in the right God, and I am a winner.

Is this right? If so, how do we deal with these people? They think we are the dumb ones who just don't understand how the world works. They think they understand what we are thinking, but that we refuse to see things their way. Unfortunately, I think that thinking in terms of us vs. them and using war metaphors is just playing into their way of thinking. We have to think in terms of Us. WE includes them. We the people. That just sounds so cheesy. Fuck it. They are fucking morons.  

That's a pretty good summary.  Her novels weren't written tongue in cheek at all, though.  She really believed her philosophy and almost lived up to it, you know, except for that one time she got really sick and couldn't afford to pay for her own medical treatments, so she accepted government assistance under a fake name.

I'm surprised I don't see more Tea Partiers smoking.  All the supermen and superwomen in Rand's novels smoke like chimneys, and I can't recall any scenes that mentioned any of the looters or parasites smoking.

Oh yeah, Ayn Rand was totally pro-choice on abortion.

QuoteAn embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_faq#obj_q5

Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 15, 2011, 05:48:15 PM
That's a pretty good summary.  Her novels weren't written tongue in cheek at all, though.  She really believed her philosophy and almost lived up to it, you know, except for that one time she got really sick and couldn't afford to pay for her own medical treatments, so she accepted government assistance under a fake name.

I'm surprised I don't see more Tea Partiers smoking.  All the supermen and superwomen in Rand's novels smoke like chimneys, and I can't recall any scenes that mentioned any of the looters or parasites smoking.

Oh yeah, Ayn Rand was totally pro-choice on abortion.

QuoteAn embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_faq#obj_q5

WOW.  :eek:

That's gonna get...used.  :lulz:

Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 15, 2011, 05:48:15 PM
That's a pretty good summary.  Her novels weren't written tongue in cheek at all, though.  She really believed her philosophy and almost lived up to it, you know, except for that one time she got really sick and couldn't afford to pay for her own medical treatments, so she accepted government assistance under a fake name.

She also cheated on her husband, but condemned her boyfriend when he in turn cheated on her.

So much for "objective morality".   :lulz:

Ayn Rand + sex = :vom:

Thanks, Dok. Never hurts to shed a couple of pounds.  :horrormirth:

Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 15, 2011, 07:28:02 PM
Ayn Rand + sex = :vom:

Thanks, Dok. Never hurts to shed a couple of pounds.  :horrormirth:

Hey, bitter, androgynous sociopaths need some lovin' too, ya know.   :lulz:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 15, 2011, 07:05:22 PM

Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 15, 2011, 05:48:15 PM
That's a pretty good summary.  Her novels weren't written tongue in cheek at all, though.  She really believed her philosophy and almost lived up to it, you know, except for that one time she got really sick and couldn't afford to pay for her own medical treatments, so she accepted government assistance under a fake name.

She also cheated on her husband, but condemned her boyfriend when he in turn cheated on her.

So much for "objective morality".   :lulz:

The funny thing about that to me is that, according to "objective morality", the part where she condemned her boyfriend was the immoral action.  The Objectivist thing to do would be to be happy for him and congratulate him on finding someone better.

Quote from: Phlogiston Merriweather on September 15, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Thanks for the help. I've read Ayn Rand. I have a hard time not thinking that it was written tongue in cheek, like a modest proposal.

Let me try to channel my inner tea party member.

I work hard, but I don't get everything I deserve for this hard work, because there are lazy people mooching off me through taxes and other bullshit economic policies put in place by the looters. These lazy people want to enjoy the fruits of my labor. What they need is a fire lit under their asses. If they had to live in fear that they would wind up torn apart by wolves or die of exposure and the flu living in a cardboard box because no one is going to help them at all, then they would stop being lazy and get to work. This is because the world is ultimately just, and in the absence of economic interference, all hard workers will be rewarded with the best our modern technology has to offer. Nobody could ever end up poor despite working hard and being intelligent. The fact that I work so hard, and am reasonably intelligent, but lack an even nicer car and an even nicer place to live than the one I have is the result of lazy people taking my money to fund abortions -not because greedy people are raking in billions of dollars by profiting off a society that has well-educated, healthy, happy people and refusing to pay back into that society in order to keep it that way. I am self righteous. I do the right things, I live the right way, I follow the right rules. Other people don't -and they are the ones that should suffer. They should suffer. I want people to suffer, unless they follow the same damn rules I do. Suffering provides the necessary negative feedback to give us all a kick in the pants when we need it. The world would be a utopia if we all worked as hard as me and stopped trying to get something for nothing. Also, I at least moderately agree with or am not completely offended by the following ideas: Christianity right, other religions are wrong, gayness is wrong, abortions are wrong, many poor people are poor because they are lazy. My ideas may not be politically correct, but I know the difference between right and wrong. If you work hard and don't completely flaunt all morality by being a homo (which is just gross, what the fuck is wrong with you people?) or doing abortions (which kills babies, how is that not clear?) then every thing will work out for you (unless some baby killing homo takes what's yours).  

Okay. I think I've done it. The problem is, in order to think this way, I have to shut off my critical analysis facility and become intransigently sure of myself. I have to be completely obsessed with the fact that I deserve more than I have. I can't empathize at all with the poor black woman who has three kids and makes minimum wage and lives in a shitty neighborhood, or with her kids who can't read or write and don't have money for lunch, because she is mooching off of me with her food stamps. She deserves the situation she is in. Her kids deserve it too. Maybe they won't be so lazy and stupid when (if) they grow up because they will learn from their experience that only hard work gets you food. I can't accept the idea that we the people could vote to each pitch in a portion of our income to help those kids out. Only lazy people would think that way.  Nor can I accept the idea that they are in an impossible situation, lacking the same opportunities I was given at birth. I have to be completely ungrateful for all that has been given to me and insist that absolutely everything good that has ever happened to me in my life is the result of my deserving it. I deserve everything good that has or will ever happen to me, and everything bad is someone else's fault, because I am one of the good guys. I am on the right team, I believe in the right God, and I am a winner.

Is this right? If so, how do we deal with these people? They think we are the dumb ones who just don't understand how the world works. They think they understand what we are thinking, but that we refuse to see things their way. Unfortunately, I think that thinking in terms of us vs. them and using war metaphors is just playing into their way of thinking. We have to think in terms of Us. WE includes them. We the people. That just sounds so cheesy. Fuck it. They are fucking morons.  

Bolded part is not quite right.  Teabaggers are actually one of the few major constituencies that was opposed to TARP.  They don't want rich people to have their money taken through taxes, because hey, they earned it by working hard and they are using it to give people jobs.  They also don't want government propping up businesses through subsidy, if the business can't survive on it's own merits let it fail and don't give handouts to rich people to cover their losses.

Their opposition to TARP was backdated.  They are opposed to it now, I think you will be hard pressed to find a teabagger who opposed TARP in Oct 2008 when Bush signed it into law.

You're wrong on that point PMZ.
when i was involved with the Ron Paul campaign (spare me the crucifixion  :wink:), the tea party movement had not yet been coopted by the religious right, and it was uniformly opposed to the TARP

Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 16, 2011, 03:12:33 AM
Their opposition to TARP was backdated.  They are opposed to it now, I think you will be hard pressed to find a teabagger who opposed TARP in Oct 2008 when Bush signed it into law.

You can't get much more teabagger than Michele Bachmann and she voted against it.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=54464227&category=views&id=20110425110245 (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=54464227&category=views&id=20110425110245)

The bolded part was out of character. I personally think that those who profit off of living in a society full of well-educated, healthy, happy people with access to what they need for a decent quality of life ought to pay back into that society to keep it that way, just like a person who profits from harvesting natural resources ought to pay back into keeping them sustainable, rather than draining the land dry and walking away. People profit from polluting public lands, and complain about environmental regulations which would prevent them from profiting at the expense of everyone else. They steal our earth, which belongs to all humanity, by polluting it. We cannot get a clean environment back, we can only try to mitigate the damage. In the same way, people profit from living in a society of educated, healthy, happy people. Then, they complain about paying into the institutions that foster the society they depend on. It isn't sustainable. They aren't dumb. They are just greedy assholes.

The Ron Paul aspects of the movement are almost completely subsumed by the more Neocon elements of it, though, right now.

And most of those Neocon types did not really oppose the bailout.  As I recall, there was some opposition to it among the neocon blogs, Michelle Malkin etc, but they had been setting themselves up for entry into a Tea Party-esque organization since about August or so (when I, among several others, noted a surprising shift towards libertarian rhetoric in their articles) and presumably needed to keep in character.

Some of the House Republicans were fairly opposed to TARP as well, as I recall, but the Bush supporters whipped them into line over the issue, in the end.

You can see this reflected in their foreign policy choices as well.  "No subsidies...but the US military (which, uh, runs on contracts to third-party private companies for nearly everything) needs an ever-increasing budget and less oversight!"  So basically they're shilling for military/security Keynesianism, even if they're not aware of it.  This is also why I think a war with Iran is basically guaranteed, whenever the GOP do take power again, because the economy is not going to improve, and a war with Iran may be the only kind of fiscal stimulus the party can be sold on.

Quote from: Iptuous on September 16, 2011, 03:20:53 AM
You're wrong on that point PMZ.
when i was involved with the Ron Paul campaign (spare me the crucifixion  :wink:), the tea party movement had not yet been coopted by the religious right, and it was uniformly opposed to the TARP

The Koch brothers were setting up websites in 2006.

Just saying.

Thanks for the correction.  I think it was just that I personally never heard any tea party types say anything about TARP until they could blame it on Obama.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2011, 02:01:41 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on September 16, 2011, 03:20:53 AM
You're wrong on that point PMZ.
when i was involved with the Ron Paul campaign (spare me the crucifixion  :wink:), the tea party movement had not yet been coopted by the religious right, and it was uniformly opposed to the TARP

The Koch brothers were setting up websites in 2006.

Just saying.

I didn't know that, but I do remember that a pharmaceutical industry lobbying firm registered and squatted on the domain chicagoteaparty.org the day after Obama won the nomination.

Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 16, 2011, 02:02:18 PM
Thanks for the correction.  I think it was just that I personally never heard any tea party types say anything about TARP until they could blame it on Obama.

They were calling for Hank Paulson and Bernanke's head.

For a long time, I think the American "2 Party" political system has been detrimental to society, by dint of it's propensity to polarise people into oppositionally diametric camps. Without getting bogged down in policy, or rhetoric, a triumverate is a far more workable system, and I hope this new dynamic of the tea party will yield real, beneficial results. A bit of a simplistic view, I know, and there are a lot of other factors at play but that's how I see it.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2011, 02:01:41 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on September 16, 2011, 03:20:53 AM
You're wrong on that point PMZ.
when i was involved with the Ron Paul campaign (spare me the crucifixion  :wink:), the tea party movement had not yet been coopted by the religious right, and it was uniformly opposed to the TARP

The Koch brothers were setting up websites in 2006.

Just saying.

I have heard about that, and although i haven't read up on it, it wouldn't surprise me.  i would contend that, even though they may have set the stage to coopt the movement and steer it to their liking, the people involved in it at the beginning , who they were trying to quarantine or to steer, were uniformly against TARP.

Bad Beast, I don't see the Tea Party forming an actual third party ever.
our two party system is pretty ossified.

Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2011, 02:40:01 PM
For a long time, I think the American "2 Party" political system has been detrimental to society, by dint of it's propensity to polarise people into oppositionally diametric camps. Without getting bogged down in policy, or rhetoric, a triumverate is a far more workable system, and I hope this new dynamic of the tea party will yield real, beneficial results. A bit of a simplistic view, I know, and there are a lot of other factors at play but that's how I see it.

The tea pary is not an actual political party, nor will anything it does be beneficial for anyone. It would be the equivalent of saying that a 2 party system with the Tories and Labor would be improved by having the BNP become a major 3rd party.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 16, 2011, 03:08:19 PM

Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2011, 02:40:01 PM
For a long time, I think the American "2 Party" political system has been detrimental to society, by dint of it's propensity to polarise people into oppositionally diametric camps. Without getting bogged down in policy, or rhetoric, a triumverate is a far more workable system, and I hope this new dynamic of the tea party will yield real, beneficial results. A bit of a simplistic view, I know, and there are a lot of other factors at play but that's how I see it.

The tea pary is not an actual political party, nor will anything it does be beneficial for anyone. It would be the equivalent of saying that a 2 party system with the Tories and Labor would be improved by having the BNP become a major 3rd party.

Hey, the Friekorps worked out well for the Weimar Republic.  :lulz:

Also, Duverger's Law:  No exceptions.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2011, 03:20:22 PM
Also, Duverger's Law:  No exceptions.

It's natural and automatic.
I was listening to this lecture once on the various voting systems that can be enacted, and they all have advantages and drawbacks....
but, just a straight plurality, with one person, one vote?  c'mon! there's better...

Mrs. Bachmann
110 2nd Street , Suite 232
Waite Park, MN 56387

To Mrs. Bachmann,

Allow me to start by saying that I have always been afervent member of the conservative movement and I am disgusted by the actions of the socialists in this country.

I am excited about your patriotic energy.

I am quite troubled about an issue that I pray you will warn others about.

My church group is being threatened by a group calling themselves the Church of Discord.

Amongst the things they have done:
They have repeatedly interrupted our gatherings with anarchist offensive slogans. They have vandalized our neighborhood with dangerous slogans. They have called us cabbages when we go outside. They have made efforts to start a national grassroots campaign to get same sex marriages and abortions approved in every state. They want us to have an open border with Mexico. They have worked to remove our Bible from  public libraries.

We humbly request that you take action against this disturbing threat to American values.

Please accept my gratitude in advance of your consideration of this important issue.

Kind regards

Trying to figure out what I can do with this group as a mindfuck for Teabaggers. Been a fan of them since the 90s. They're considering selling their domain name apparently.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/teapartycom-could-make-a-rock-band-rich-09152011.html

Quote from: Cain on September 14, 2011, 02:02:41 PM
Actually, while the Tea Party as a rule supports lower taxs for corporations and large employers (increasing their economic resources invariably increases their potential economic activity, which is more likely to produce jobs than putting people on welfare forever and ever without employment plans), it does not support handouts for corporations and banks, even though those handouts are less offensive than welfare, because it goes towards companies and groups which produce more wealth, which ultimately makes us all wealthier.

Regulations and minimum wage are a form of raising barriers to the possibility of employment, putting it beyond the means of some employers.  It also encourages inflation, by setting certain minimal standards of pay, whereas if pay were more flexible, prices would drop as production costs dropped and sellers sought to appeal to less high-earning buyers.

As for unions...don't you socialists ever learn from history?  Unions are nothing but fronts for corrupt mobsters and gangsters.  Their policies on minimum wage and other conditions also lead to what was described above.

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~lrazzolini/GR2010.pdf

Saw this earlier in the year and then lost the link.  It's loosely related to the bolded part.  Incidentally, I found it again through a CNN opinion piece on the subject of the minimum wage.  That piece is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/16/opinion/saltsman-minimum-wage/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9

Life was GREAT before the minimum wage laws!  It was an employee's paradise!

ha!  Cram--did you really send that?  That's awesome.

We generated it using our new toy.

Check it out: http://principiadiscordia.com/to-the-bachmobile/bachmann.php

hit f5 for a new letter of outrage to send to your local tea party reps

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 16, 2011, 03:08:19 PM

Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2011, 02:40:01 PM
For a long time, I think the American "2 Party" political system has been detrimental to society, by dint of it's propensity to polarise people into oppositionally diametric camps. Without getting bogged down in policy, or rhetoric, a triumverate is a far more workable system, and I hope this new dynamic of the tea party will yield real, beneficial results. A bit of a simplistic talking out me arse  view, I know, and there are a lot of other factors at play ((primarily, my lack of relevant facts)) but that's how I see imagined it.    (edited for accuracy)

The tea pary is not an actual political party, nor will anything it does be beneficial for anyone. It would be the equivalent of saying that a 2 party system with the Tories and Labor would be improved by having the BNP become a major 3rd party.

I really thought they were a proper political party for some reason.  :oops: (Probably the same reasons that British people think that Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Tories are  proper political parties) 

Yep. The teabaggers are basically the radical right fringe of the republican party. Except instead of calling themselves republicans, which apparently isn,'t what the cool kids call themselves, they use the name tea party to describe their movement. These republicans when pressed to identify their politics will say libertarian. Except as far as i know no teabagger is actually enrolled in the libertarian party (we do have third parties here but they often don't do well in a race where both a dem and a repub are running)" it would be akin to a democrat saying they were a key party patriot and when pressed say that they were a member of either the green or the socialist party.

Hmm. Perhaps this is exactly the reason that teabaggers think that democrats are socialists, much to the annoyance of both democrats and socialists.

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on September 16, 2011, 11:40:05 PM
Hmm. Perhaps this is exactly the reason that teabaggers think that democrats are socialists, much to the annoyance of both democrats and socialists.

Teabaggers think democrats are socialists because they have no clue what the word "socialism" means.  To them it's just a generic term that means any government spending that they don't agree with.  I have argued with them about it, and they don't hear what I'm saying.  If I say that Obama is not a socialist because socialism means public ownership of the means of production and Obama supports private ownership of the means of production, then they tell me that I am only saying that because I must support his policies.  When I say, no, I don't support his policies, they get confused.  They can't seem to understand why someone who is not in favor of Obama's policies would deny that Obama is a socialist.  So, they just write me off as an idiot and say things like, "Just goes to show you can't fix stupid."

I never considered posing as an actual socialist, denying that Obama and other democrats are socialists because I'm in favor of socialism.

Oh it throws them for a loop. I mentioned in a teabagger thread once the very same thing. I also mentioned i used to be a marxist and that as such i knew for a fact that china was never communist. Only one bagger backed me up because for once there was one who did know the difference.

Most socialists I know either very grudgingly accept Obama, or want to see a primary run against him in 2012.

As for the Teabagger/Republican thing....you have to remember how abysmally low the Republican Party was in 2008.  It was a ruined label.  The party was mostly discredited.  Obama trounced McCain in the elections, and the Republicans were seen as the party of war and debt.  I said at the time I expected to see many of the more ambitious and extreme Republicans to flee to something like the Conservative Party (which is, incidentally, heavily Teabagger connected now) in an attempt to offset the damage done to their reputation by, well, themselves.

That Republican fortunes have since risen is in no small part due to the fact Obama sees the left of his own party as more threatening than the right of the Republicans.  Can you say "Weimar Republic"?  :lol:

Quote from: Cain on September 17, 2011, 09:05:54 AM
Most socialists I know either very grudgingly accept Obama, or want to see a primary run against him in 2012.

As for the Teabagger/Republican thing....you have to remember how abysmally low the Republican Party was in 2008.  It was a ruined label.  The party was mostly discredited.  Obama trounced McCain in the elections, and the Republicans were seen as the party of war and debt.  I said at the time I expected to see many of the more ambitious and extreme Republicans to flee to something like the Conservative Party (which is, incidentally, heavily Teabagger connected now) in an attempt to offset the damage done to their reputation by, well, themselves.

That Republican fortunes have since risen is in no small part due to the fact Obama sees the left of his own party as more threatening than the right of the Republicans.  Can you say "Weimar Republic"?   :lol:

:Checks expiration date on Irish passport:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:58:45 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:53:14 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:39:11 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
:lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:

Oh the irony, it's biting.

Explain it to me then, for I am hipster-deficient.

You have a captive audience.

Explain what?  I did my best to answer his question as sincerely as possible.  You mentioned bigotry, which is ironic because there's quite a lot of that on display ITT, (granted, in a "humorous-through-ridicule" way) by any definition I've ever been familiar with.

The only other responses not showing obvious bias and disdain were Cain's.

Hey, let your opinions, biases, and intolerance about another group of people shine, I say.  It's honesty, at least.  But don't try and color it another shade of what it clearly is, and calling other bigots, bigots in order to help cover your own is pretty fucking recursive.

Wait.  Are you saying you need examples of tea party bigotry?  For real?  Because I'll be more than happy to post some.

And, yeah, I have an intolerance for bigotry.  That makes me a bigot ("other bigots")? 

You know, I was starting to wonder why I dislike DP so intensely, and then I find shit like this.

Reply #123: Today at 11:57:57 AM '57 was the year 7 left for WESTPAC

WESTPAC is NAVY LINGO for west pacific | in this case Japan
taxie fairs were 10 yen ? the exchange rate was 360:1 H_o's were 20 as i recall

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 16, 2012, 08:57:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:58:45 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:53:14 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 14, 2011, 02:39:11 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
:lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:

Oh the irony, it's biting.

Explain it to me then, for I am hipster-deficient.

You have a captive audience.

Explain what?  I did my best to answer his question as sincerely as possible.  You mentioned bigotry, which is ironic because there's quite a lot of that on display ITT, (granted, in a "humorous-through-ridicule" way) by any definition I've ever been familiar with.

The only other responses not showing obvious bias and disdain were Cain's.

Hey, let your opinions, biases, and intolerance about another group of people shine, I say.  It's honesty, at least.  But don't try and color it another shade of what it clearly is, and calling other bigots, bigots in order to help cover your own is pretty fucking recursive.

Wait.  Are you saying you need examples of tea party bigotry?  For real?  Because I'll be more than happy to post some.

And, yeah, I have an intolerance for bigotry.  That makes me a bigot ("other bigots")? 

You know, I was starting to wonder why I dislike DP so intensely, and then I find shit like this.

I don't ever forget why.  It was right around the time he was talking shit about how poor people deserve whatever they get, and how he spurned me when I tried to help him.

DiscoPickle is nothing more than a piece of shit, a delusional Libertard who takes his luck for granted to the point where it is offensive, and he makes me sick.

My posts ITT were great, though.

Quote from: Cain on April 16, 2012, 10:57:29 PM
My posts ITT were great, though.

Truth.