-
Dispatches from the Enchanted Kingdom
Tea-Baggers
The Republicans were thrilled over the “tea bag” parties last weekend. It looks like they didn’t bother to check what “tea-bagging” means.
The Urban Dictionary defines tea–bagging as “dipping your testicles into the open mouth of another person. Kind of like dipping a tea bag in and out of a cup of water.”
When and how did that once respectable political party degenerate into a mob of ignorant wingnuts and religious fanatics who would remake the Boston Tea Party into a “tea bag” protest?
The decline started in 1968. Richard Nixon won the presidency by appealing to the lowest common denominator of American politics—fear and stupidity. But Nixon was smart enough to recognize a campaign tactic for what it was; he did not allow himself to be held captive by it.
His successors, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes (George H.W. and George W.), were not as smart. And so what was originally just a campaign tactic to break the Democratic Party’s 40-year dominance over the legislature turned into an ideology that would divide Americans into camps for or against such idiotic slogans like the “Evil Empire,” “Willie Horton” and “The Axis of Evil.”
The entire American experiment seemed doomed to bumper stickerisms until Americans regained their senses and elected Barack Obama.
Witness the nuance and intelligence of Obama’s responses at a press conference after the conclusion of the Summit of the Americas. It’s a refreshing departure from the arrogance and vacuity of his predecessor.
Reporter Chuck Todd asked Obama about the pillars of the “Obama Doctrine.”
THE PRESIDENT: “…There are a couple of principles that I’ve tried to apply across the board:
“Number one, that the United States remains the most powerful, wealthiest nation on Earth, but we’re only one nation, and that the problems that we confront can’t be solved just by one country…. And I think if you start with that approach, then you are inclined to listen and not just talk.
“…We recognize that other countries have good ideas, too, and we want to hear them. And the fact that a good idea comes from a small country like Costa Rica should not somehow diminish the fact that it’s a good idea.
“Number two…I feel very strongly that when we are at our best, the United States represents a set of universal values and ideals…. But what I also believe is that other countries have different cultures, different perspectives, and are coming out of different histories, and that we do our best to promote our ideals and our values by our example.
“And so if we are practicing what we preach and if we occasionally confess to having strayed from our values and our ideals, that strengthens our hand; that allows us to speak with greater moral force and clarity around these issues.
“And again, I think people around the world appreciate that we’re not suggesting we are holding ourselves to one set of standards and we’re going to hold you to another set of standards; that we’re not simply going to lecture you, but we’re rather going to show through how we operate the benefits of these values and ideals.
And as a consequence of listening, believing that there aren’t junior partners and senior partners in the international stage, I don’t think that we suddenly transform every foreign- policy item that’s on the agenda….
“…Countries are going to have interests, and changes in foreign-policy approaches by my administration aren’t suddenly going to make all those interests that may diverge from ours disappear. What it does mean, though, is, at the margins, more likely to want to cooperate than not cooperate. It means that where there is resistance to a particular set of policies that we’re pursuing, that resistance may turn out just to be based on old preconceptions or ideological dogmas that, when they’re cleared away, it turns out that we can actually solve a problem.”
As to the knee-jerk idiocy that followed his less than unfriendly interaction with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Obama said:
“…We had this debate throughout the campaign, and the whole notion was, is that somehow if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us, that that somehow would be a sign of weakness. The American people didn’t buy it. And there’s a good reason the American people didn’t buy it—because it doesn’t make sense.
“…Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’…. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez… we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which US interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.”
The Republicans tea-bagged themselves when they turned campaign rhetoric based on fear and stupidity into dogma. Instead of tea-bagging, they should smell the coffee.
Popularity: 3% [?]
<img src="http://www.cagle.com/news/TeaParties/images/cagle00.gif">
<img src="http://www.cagle.com/news/TeaParties/images/sack.jpg">
Bush squandered his political capital. Bush still owes Americans in political capital deficit spending. Whereas, Filipinos are still scraping the bottom of the barrel on political capital, if any
http://www.cagle.com/news/TeaParties/images/cagle...
watsamata with you, run out of crap to write about philippine politics? your definition of "tea party" must be a fagotized version of the historic boston tea party, a.k.a. tax revolt. the republicans must keep reminding open-minded americans how their very way of life is being threatened in so many ways. america should never be allowed to become a socialist state like most of western europe and canada. such a tragedy is too horrible to contemplate for REAL americans.
I don't think America is turning into a "Socialist" country but is just considering some social programs to help its economy.
how is what obama is doing socialism?
"a socialist state like most of western europe and canada"
compared to a capitalist state like the Philippines?????????????
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/clown.gif">
yeah, right. since not everybody can hack it and can become rich, why not equalize poverty by "re-distributing" wealth? soak the rich, penalize success and reward failure?
capitalism redistributed the wealth from the poor to the rich.
<img src="http://www.cagle.com/news/CEOSalaryCaps/images/keefe.jpg">
get your logic straight. how can "not enough" be re-distributed? oh, well, i guess you can if you are re-distributing pennies.
When you take out money out of your wallet and you hand it to someone else – what do you call that? Keeping it?
Ano ba yan?
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/clown.gif">
read this carefully. when you take out a penny and give it to someone else, you call that "giving a penny" (assuming he would accept it without throwing it back at you for feeling insulted)..
bencard:
"giving" is a synonym for "distribute". <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/face002.gif">
distribute
One entry found.
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin distributus, past participle of distribuere, from dis- + tribuere to allot — more at tribute
Date:
15th century
transitive verb1: to divide among several or many : apportion <distribute expenses>2 a: to spread out so as to cover something : scatter b: to give out or deliver especially to members of a group <distribute newspapers> <distribute leaflets> c: to place or position so as to be properly apportioned over or throughout an area <200 pounds distributed on a 6-foot frame> d: to use (a term) so as to convey information about every member of the class named <the proposition “all men are mortal” distributes “man” but not “mortal”>3 a: to divide or separate especially into kinds b: to return the units of (as typeset matter) to storage4: to use in or as an operation so as to be mathematically distributiveintransitive verb: to be mathematically distributive <multiplication distributes over addition>
— dis·trib·u·tee Listen to the pronunciation of distributee \\dis-ˌtri-byü-ˈtē\\ noun
synonyms distribute, dispense, divide, deal, dole out mean to give out, usually in shares, to each member of a group. distribute implies an apportioning by separation of something into parts, units, or amounts <distributed food to the needy>. dispense suggests the giving of a carefully weighed or measured portion to each of a group according to due or need <dispensed wisdom to the students>. divide stresses the separation of a whole into parts and implies that the parts are equal <three charitable groups divided the proceeds>. deal emphasizes the allotment of something piece by piece <deal out equipment and supplies>. dole out implies a carefully measured portion of something that is often in short supply <doled out what little food there was>
i dont get it. who is redistributing from the poor to the rich? how?
GabbyD:
Let's say today you have $500 in your wallet.
Let's further assume a grocery corporation/proprietorship has $50,000 in the vault.
Then, you went to the grocery and charged $100 to your debit card.
Your $100 has been transferred/distributed from your wallet that has lesser wealth/money/monetary value (read as "poor") to the storeowner's wealthier wallet.
Of that $100, x% goes to transport, y% goes to manufacturing, z% goes to marketing, and n% goes to profit.
Substitute grocery for insurance/car loan/mortgage.
Aggregate the personal wealth that flowed out from your wallet to the corporate end of the equation – and that pretty much tells you the money of the person with less wealth was distributed to the companies that had more wealth.
As the progression goes, more and more wealth is concentrated in the person/entity with greater wealth, and the person with less wealth has lesser resources of monetary value. In this case, I would argue that wealth flowed from a person with less wealth to an entity with greater wealth – redistributing it from the poor to the rich.
The crux of the matter is money is being redistributed everyday, and there is nothing "socialist" about it.
how can wealth be redistributed from the poor. did they have any to start with?
Get your facts straight. The poor have money – it is just not enough.
Poor as referred in this comment refers to those who are below the poverty threshold as defined in <a href=”http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/t…” target=”_blank”>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/t…
<img src="http://cagle.com/news/Pirates09/images/fitzsimmons.jpg" >
a thousand or less pennies is money but is it "wealth"? c'mon, "atenista", think straight.
You mean you haven't taken your advise?
Wealth:
3. Economics.
a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.
i guess you would call yourself "wealthy" because you were wearing beach flip-plops and a pair of cheap-looking shades on a dirty beach, right?
bencard:
i'm a janitor wearing old navy leather flip flops, wearing wayfarers, in a beach frequented by people who have less wealth than the people who have more wealth. am quite sure donald trump has more wealth than I.
you don't know this concept of … "less than" and "more than".. as in… "less wealth", "more wealth"?
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/drooling.gif">
eager beaver, am quite aware you are using the term "wealth" as a layman would.
however, i speak of wealth within the context of economics because "redistribution of wealth" is an economic issue which not only affects the "wealthy" but those who are not "wealthy" and who posses items of value (which is wealth as defined in economics – All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.)
penny has a value.
in economics, anything of value is "wealth". a penny has economic value. therefore, pennies are considered "wealth". The "wealthy" man just happens to have "more wealth", the poor folks have "less wealth".
napaka-elementary, is this a forum or a remedial class for economics flunkies?
it was you who posited that the "wealth" of the poor was "re-distributed" to the rich, right? when i said the poor has no wealth to be re-distributed, you went into this academic (not "layman's) definition of wealth as "anything of value". when i said pennies have value, you cockily retorts that i'm using "wealth" as a layman would, implying that you are an extraordinary intellectual who uses the term "within the context of economics" (whatever the hell that means).
bull-shit, in economic terms as you put it, is also "wealth" because it could be used as fertilizer. napakahilig mong magsabi ng "elementary". kailangan mo munang maintindihan kung ano ang elementary bago ka magsalita ng "advanced".
bencard:
pennies still have a value – and therefore considered as wealth.
bull-shit, even bat-shit (guano) has value because wealth because it indeed can be sold as fertilizer. bull-shit or cow manure is sold at $4.97 per bag at Lowes and Home Depot – that's VALUE!
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/FV/051524602218sm.jpg">
elementary na elementary di mo makuha, "advanced" pa kaya.
kaya ang mga sagot mo hanggang "i dunno what that means" – ain't that obvious.
"bull-shit, in economic terms as you put it, is also "wealth" because it could be used as fertilizer. "
Lowes and Home Depot are selling bull-sh*t at $4.97 per sack.
hay naku, tiguwang na, tonto lang gihapon.
"bull-shit, in economic terms as you put it, is also "wealth" because it could be used as fertilizer."
absolutely! <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/FV/051524602218sm.jpg">
cow manure is selling at $4.97 per bag at your nearest home improvement store. $4.97 is a value – it's not free!
basic na basic eh, di ma gets. ano ba yan, tiguwang na tonto ra gihapon.
Bencard's reply isn't actually without foundation, but my thought is that Obama's mindset in terms of Capitalism isn't focused entirely on a free market devoid of social programs.. his belief is that Government has the duty to give a chance to everyone, while preserving the market in a more stringent regulatory environment.. I just don't see how this could be wrong.
I mean, let's face it, the right wing's implementation of a so called free market hasn't actually proved substantial in terms of education, health care, and a financial structure deemed strong.. as we look at it today, the collapse are symptoms of a dysfunction in this system.. this is why the echo of change rings clear with many Americans..
The Republicans have had that chance, to wish failure on Obama's Policies as of now, as what Limbaugh is pushing for, is just plain partisan..
you have not even acknowledged my reply to this post. what gives?
bencard,
Nah, GMA will never run out of crap to write about. But the party of Larry "airport restrooms" Craig and Mark "male interms" Foley going all out for tea-bagging was just too good to pass up.
If you will do a little bit of historical research, in addition to the screen capture I included for those too lazy to investigate, you will see that your friends were using the term tea-bag and tea-bagging. They changed it to tea party after some kind souls pointed out just exactly what it was they were mouthing. Pun intended.
Anyway, enjoy your tea and my regards to Larry, Mark, and Bill "loofa" Oh Riley, Rush "Oxycontin, Limbaugh, and Rudy "crossdresser" Giulliani. My apologies for the others I may have left out.
Tea bag parties by the GOP?
Dang, the more appropriate term would be DOUCHE BAG PARTY. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/clown.gif">
<img src="http://cagle.com/news/RingleaderRush/images/britt5.jpg">
crap comes from the anus that ejects it – yours.
filipinovoices, america did not get to become the greatest nation on earth in all fields of human activity by pursuing a policy such as what you refer to as "change". economic ups and downs are largely cyclical and must have its natural course. you don't burn a whole city just because some houses in it have termites. you have to be a keen observer, on the ground, of american politics to see where obama is going with his socialist and left-leaning agenda.
btw, a lot of good commentaries and debates are being missed by our readers, in real time, due to this newfangled system of moderating or approving postings. i think this observation is shared by most here. it seems, some comments are discarded never to see the light of day for no apparent reason. i wonder if your above post was subjected to the same kind of "moderation" or "approval" process.
"america did not get to become the greatest nation on earth in all fields of human activity by pursuing a policy such as what you refer to as "change"."
America used to be a colony of Britain. Something happened. America seceded from Britain.
Blacks used to be slaves. Something happened. Blacks were freed.
Women were not allowed to vote before. Something happened. Women can vote.
Whites and Blacks were segregated. Something happened. Whites and coloreds are now integrated.
That's not "change". ?????????????
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/shocking.gif">
they were change alright but they were not instigated by "socialist and left-leaning agenda" that i was referring to. read and study the whole context of my comment before you shoot from the hip.
There is nothing "socialist" about Obama's moves – if you want true socialism, try China.
As pointed out by actual socialists:
Greg Pason, National Secretary of the Socialist Party USA: “Barack Obama's programs are not socialist. The vast majority of his proposals are anti-worker (or he might say ‘pro-business’). His health care proposals are more to save the for-profit insurance industry and do not have the goal of ending for-profit insurance. He has refused to support a Senate version of HR676, which would create a single-payer program (not socialist but much better than we have, and [which has] the support of labor and community organizations across the US). Many of his other economic proposals are pro-corporate.
A socialist program (even a reformist one) would not be a program that props up capitalism when it fails, but one that transforms the economy. None of Senator Obama's proposals do that. Senator Obama’s tax plan is regressive and even less ‘progressive’ than programs put forward under such conservative administrations like the one of Richard Nixon.”
F.N. Brill, National Secretary of the World Socialist Party (US): “Obama is as much a socialist as the Pope is an atheist. Income redistribution isn't a socialist act. It might aid in ameliorating income disparities within a capitalist economy for a limited time. But the logic of capitalism demands the rich grow richer (more capitalization is needed) and the poor grow poorer (their work creates the needed capital used by the rich).”
David Schaich, Socialist Party Campaign Clearinghouse Coordinator: “The idea that Barack Obama is socialist, or quasi-socialist, or semi-socialist, or socialist-light, or anything of the sort, is far-right nonsense. Barack Obama, like John McCain, is very much a ‘politician as usual,’fully committed to the continuation of the capitalist system and the expansion of its empire.”
Barack Obama, the pious, messianic hero of the Left, is thrice denied by the socialist movement itself. Some say his proposals are in fact bad for working America, and others suggest he is just as much a dirty capitalist as the rest of us.
Rea Hederman, assistant director at the Heritage Foundation’s center for data analysis, adroitly draws our attention to the real problem with Obama’s proposals, specifically his tax plan:
“I wouldn’t call the plan socialist. I have concerns anytime that the tax code is made more complex or used as a tool for social policy. Ideally, the tax code should be made as efficient as possible to maximize economic growth and minimize the distortions that arise from taxation.”
Do not use a word before you shoot from the hip.
As practing socialists would have it:
Understand the meaning of the word before you shoot from the hip.
just you wait and see. i wish he fails in his ultra-liberal designs. but he is neck-deep in the george soros's move on.com's blueprint for a socialist america. quoting an alleged "socialist" without even identifying him not only betrays a copycat mind but also a pseudo-intellectual trying to get validation from anonymous partisan spinner.
Red Herrings and Ad Hominems are for folks without an argument.
Your definition of "SOCIALIST" is way off the reservation. Mistaken. Incorrect. Misled. Ill-informed. Ignorant. Wrong.
In case you missed the names in the earlier post – Greg Pason, National Secretary of the Socialist Party USA;
F.N. Brill, National Secretary of the World Socialist Party (US); David Schaich, Socialist Party Campaign Clearinghouse Coordinator.
all these characters you named may call themselves "socialist" but they will not think twice about criticizing obama whenever he deviates from the strict socialist line. obama appears to be a flip-plopping, opportunistic, populist politician who buckles from pressures when the load gets too heavy. one example of this (among many others) is his administration's idea of prosecuting people from bush's administration allegedly involved in enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists, right after sayng he would not allow that. nevertheless, they all, obviously, share the same general agenda for ideological sea change in america
in any event, when you argue, use your own ideas and knowledge. i don't want to debate against a mouthpiece.
there is nothing new under the sun that has not been discussed before – except technological innovations that are beyond the imagination of the ignorant.
you are every inch a mouthpiece like everyone else.
there is nothing new under the sun that has not been discussed before.
you are every inch a mouthpiece like everyone else.
socialist?
yeah.. and you are a surgeon because there's a hospital next to your office.
see what i mean? automatic "must be approved". will i ever see it again?
my apologies Bencard, the new moderation seems to have some strong filters for some words.. We're trying to fix this ASAP..
Only the US media used the word "tea bagging" and they know what it means. They used the term as a sutle redicule to the tea parties which thousands of Americans have participated. Unfortunately, the mainstream media which is mostly liberal in my opinion did a poor job or one-sided reporting of the event.
bencard,
but did you say hi to your friends from me?
Jason Bruce,
That Tea-Bag Obama website that I screen grabbed is mainstream media?
michele malkin is mainstream media?
michele was obviously quoting from the leftist media.
Manuel:
did you watch last night's episode on "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart?" it was frakkin hysterical!
[youtube 6SOPxuHAfss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOPxuHAfss youtube]
[youtube a9CWgMv7pm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CWgMv7pm8 youtube]
Manuel:
did you watch last night's episode on "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart?" it was frakkin hysterical!
[youtube 6SOPxuHAfss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOPxuHAfss youtube]
[youtube a9CWgMv7pm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CWgMv7pm8 youtube]
Manuel:
did you watch last night's episode on "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart?" it was frakkin hysterical!
[youtube 6SOPxuHAfss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOPxuHAfss youtube]
[youtube a9CWgMv7pm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CWgMv7pm8 youtube]
Manuel:
did you watch last night's episode on "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart?" it was frakkin hysterical!
[youtube 6SOPxuHAfss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOPxuHAfss youtube]
[youtube a9CWgMv7pm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CWgMv7pm8 youtube]
Manuel:
did you watch last night's episode on "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart?" it was frakkin hysterical!
[youtube 6SOPxuHAfss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOPxuHAfss youtube]
[youtube a9CWgMv7pm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CWgMv7pm8 youtube]
Manuel:
did you watch last night's episode on "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart?" it was frakkin hysterical!
[youtube 6SOPxuHAfss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOPxuHAfss youtube]
[youtube a9CWgMv7pm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CWgMv7pm8 youtube]
Manuel:
did you watch last night's episode on "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart?" it was frakkin hysterical!
[youtube 6SOPxuHAfss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOPxuHAfss youtube]
[youtube a9CWgMv7pm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CWgMv7pm8 youtube]
Manuel:
did you watch last night's episode on "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart?" it was frakkin hysterical!
[youtube 6SOPxuHAfss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOPxuHAfss youtube]
[youtube a9CWgMv7pm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CWgMv7pm8 youtube]
Manuel:
did you watch last night's episode on "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart?" it was frakkin hysterical!
[youtube 6SOPxuHAfss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOPxuHAfss youtube]
[youtube a9CWgMv7pm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9CWgMv7pm8 youtube]
Bencard,
"michele was obviously quoting from the leftist media."
Hahaha. She wouldn't get tea bagged if she was the last mouth on earth
as a writer or journalist, you cannot hold a candle on malkin. as to her personal appearance, how can you make fun of, or denigrate, it when you cannot even display your face here. i bet it's hideous even for your so-called "tea-bagger", no matter how sex-starved.
Bencard,
Well if you think Malkin is a great writer and journalist, I'm sure you also think Rusj Limbaugh is an intellectual and a great orator.
You are what you eat,
BongV
saw it anf loved it
did you really? buencamino's face? wow!
Bencard wrote:
Your example does not have anything to do with socialism and totally irrelevant – another red herring.
Socialism has many flavors ranging from the Marxist to the Social Democrat flavor. It appears that all you know about socialism is what Rush Limbaugh has shoved down your throat.
Of course, there is an agenda for ideological sea change in america. That's why americans voted the frakkin GOP out!!! Where have you been?
BHO is a centrist and a pragmatist not an ideologue.
Bong,
In case you didn't know. The videos cannot be opened due to copyright claim.
This is what makes me hesitant to have to carry a picture or photo or video for every blog I write but then again, benigno keeps nagging me.
Primer:
you can go direct to the comedy central website – or "the daily show" with Jon Stewart
you can also grab royalty-free photos from gettyimages; upload it to a photo hosting site like photobucket – and link to it.
To my mind, two commenters in 'diametrical opposition' presents two levels of understanding here – one the gestalt, the other the non-gestalt.
So it all showed. And Bong did cut clean. Kudos!
consider the source, folks. one clueless bonehead in favor of another.
ad hominems are for people without an argument.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/clown.gif">
people who are stumped usually cry the latin words "ad hominem" like an all-purpose defense and offense.
indeed. makes me wonder why are we all putting up with this pekeng commentarista who steals words verbatim and dress them up like his own. ok, ok, bong P, it's red herring: so chew it.
good, you are learning that you have nothing but red herring statements.
absolutely.
clueless about "change"
clueless about "socialism"
clueless about "redistribution"
clueless about "wealth"
leading to red herrings and ad hominems –
"one clueless bonehead in favor of another" is not an ad hominem?????
"one clueless bonehead in favor of another" is not a red herring?????
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/praying.gif">
talk to your imaginary friend. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/rotfl.gif">
that's why you are crap, mb. remember how you savor it with gusto over at mlq3's? btw, limbaugh is an american with something that makes sense to say. in fact, a lot of it. he is no dummy like al franken.
applause, applause, the bright "atheista/atenista" has the last word. bravo!