They MOCK the Tea-Bagging?

I don’t remember Iraq War protests having names so easily mocked. If you don’t like it do a better job picking names. 5 second google search would tell you that teabagging and 2M4M were bad ideas (though the organization that picked 2M4M also have the acronym NOM so they clearly don’t spend enough time online).

You know, I agree that they’re a bunch of nuts, but it doesn’t follow that we need to insult them. The anti-war analogy is a good one. While we may not have had funny names, we pro-peace types got a lot of grief in other ways. Perhaps we can try having a political discussion without name calling this time?

(And the name was decided in 1773. They didn’t have too much control over connotations that developed in the intervening years.)

It’s a good thing they didn’t go with the the name “punch-fisting parties” like they originally planned.

Miko, the word “teabagging” was unquestionably not invented in 1773. I’m fairly certain tea bags were a 20th century invention. Tea was too expensive to waste on individual servings before that, and would be brewed in a pot.

OneNewsNow is probably not upset about the MSNBC and other cracks about teabagging, because (as far as I know) Anderson Cooper is the only gay one who made a sexual joke about them. And dem gays better not get all uppity and talkin’ ’bout good christians!

I am surprised how many atheist sites take political positions. It seems an unnecessary way to divide the community. Sure, if you stated, “Here comes my political opinions — my atheist hat is off”, then I would get it. To me it is as if an atheist site started making fun of cat owners and implied that all intelligent atheists would never own a cat. I would wager there are many libertarian atheists, but it seems not many that write on posts. Am I delusional?

Sabio,

Technically you are right about atheism. Atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. It is indeed possible to be an atheist and be a limited government anti-tax advocate.

In today’s climate, though, the more passionate atheists (those that blog or leave comments) are motivated by liberal social causes. Once the country progresses a bit on these fronts, I would suspect that we would see less social commentary and more economic commentary with a different bunch of bloggers.

As one gay friend of mine put it, he is Democrat because he doesn’t like the idea of being drug behind a pickup-truck presumably by a Republican. For him, the social causes trump economic causes.

Jeff

I am surprised how many atheist sites take political positions. It seems an unnecessary way to divide the community.

I see your point, and I know a couple of nonbelievers who are of the Libertarian or “fiscal conservative” Republican stripe.

However, the events of the last 8 years have had a large effect in politicizing me. The Bush/Rove brand of Republicanism actively courted the Evangelical Theocracy vote, and many of their positions were based solely on catering to – or if you prefer, pandering to – the religious. When numerous candidates and leaders of one party support a ridiculously anti-fact position like “Intelligent Design” creationism, it makes my political choices so much easier. There are no nonreligious reasons to support ID. So many other positions I could name here; opposition to gay rights, opposition to stem cell research, and to reproductive rights. These are all positions derived almost exclusively from religious reasons.

The Bush/Rove era brought Evangelical theocrats into the Republican power base, and it now is not ridiculous to suggest that they are in charge; or at the very least, that if the Evangelicals got kicked out, the remainder of the party would not be big enough to win any elections.

Bush/Rove also abandoned “Republican” positions of fiscal responsibilty and such, so if you are not a theocrat, it’s not clear what the party would have to offer you. I have to suggest that any thinking person might be embarrassed to be associated with today’s Republican party.

They’re dupes plain and simple.

I don’t understand what makes the middle class feel like they have upper-crust economic interests, or for that matter anything else in common with the rich. Income-wise they are FAR closer to the poverty line (~20K/year) than they will EVER be to the wealthy. Same goes with NET-worth.
As far as distribution of economic resources and POWER, there really are only 2 classes – masters and servants.

$1.2 trillion deficit in 2019*. How many of you are aware of that figure?

I think George Bush was the worst president in my life time. One of the many, many reasons, I hate him was the fact he took the Clinton surpluses and turned them into $400 billion deficits. Cutting taxes and raising spending is stupid economics and is stealing from future generations.

But Bush was a piker compared to Obama. My daughter’s share of the federal debt will be $70,000 before she gets to vote. ($21 trillion divided by 300 million people.) At 5% interest, she will be paying $3500 per year for our irresponsibility. It is despicable.

We (and Obama) need to prioritize. If we want to spend money on green energy and health card, we need to cut spending somewhere. Obama’s plan is to cut taxes ($300 billion in 2019) and spend on everything that might possibly be good. I do not object to anything specific but we need to choose what is important. We elect people to make hard decisions not to bow to our every whim. We need to stop acting like spoiled children and take responsibilty for our future.

* – According to the Congressional Budget Office that is the result of Obama budget. Table 1.1.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/03-20-PresidentBudget.pdf

But Bush was a piker compared to Obama.

If Bush ruined the economy, then Obama gets elected and has to fix it, who gets the blame?

We (and Obama) need to prioritize. If we want to spend money on green energy and health card, we need to cut spending somewhere.

The whole point of Keynesian stimulus is to spend. If you don’t believe in Keynesian stimulation, just say so.

Too late, teabagger:
McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming ‘Religious Party’

I think it is a thing of utter irony, when a group that feels like it has been marginalized and down-trodden, takes it upon themselves to do something so silly that they further marginalize themselves. Two cheers for the far right and their message of “we don’t mind being lampooned”.