What in the fuck do the teabaggers want?
I came across this rather fine description of their wants and desires.
Besides smaller government and more freedom—which are trite and meaningless aims, I think the article I found puts this all into context.
Before I get to that, I suppose I should clarify my last claim.
There are 310 million people in this country. Now I suppose that that number was down from the last census, there might be an argument for a smaller government. Say if we had lost fifty million people or something. It might be argued that a smaller government is in order due to the decrease in population.
My second point would be that 300 million people are not governed by one government; any more than China is governed by one governmental entity.
We have 50 state governments as well as some territoriality governments. We have urban governments. We have thousands of county governments.
Third, we have this technological explosion whereby someone in NYC procures some doodad from a business concern in China and sells it to someone in Cleveland.
NYC must look out for its citizens but it does not have the means to begin to worry about the citizens in Cleveland. So that if the doodad sent to Cleveland kills somebody, it has nothing to do with NYC and its interests.
Similarly, someone in Miami can sneeze on some oranges and all of a sudden there is an influenza epidemic in Minneapolis.
Miami does not have the means to do anything about a flu epidemic in Minneapolis.
We do live on a flat world and on a flatter country.
There are no means to even begin to take care of a myriad of issues in a flat country without a Federal Government. And as the world becomes more inter-connected, more Federal type issues come to the fore.
Enough of that for now.
Here is the core cause of the teaparty as I see it!
What does this kaleidoscope of kookiness add up to? According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, tea partyers are richer, whiter, better educated, older, more male and more likely to be employed than the rest of America. In other words, they largely come from society's "haves," who now worry, as Thomas Edsall argues in The Atlantic Monthly, that "the competition for resources cannot be resolved by...economic growth," and so are rallying to hold on to their wealth, status, authority and autonomy. Or as one tea party sign put it, Your Fair Share Is Not in My Pocket.
Now the pollsters and surveyors of public opinion deal with a finite number of themes and opinions or they could never publish anything of any monetary value to anyone.
And these pollsters must use averages and do very little investigation as to the veracity of the information given them.
How much do you make?
Do you hate Negroes?
Verifying such data would be an impossible task and as Dr. House puts it:
So the surveys may demonstrate that most Tea Baggers are white and after taking a brief look at videos of the tea bagging congregations, there might be some veracity to a finding that most Tea Baggers are white.
But surveys telling us how much money these morons have and how much they earn are not verifiable.
So the best one could conclude from these studies would be that Tea Baggers think they make more money than most other Americans; think they have more material wealth than others and fear that 'the masses' are going to take their Hummel figurines and other important artifacts and give them away to drug addicts who live on the streets.
I would probably conclude that not many folks who have had their homes taken from them through illegal foreclosure actions would join the Tea Party Movement as such.
I would assume that those who have lost their jobs over the last four years or so would refrain from wearing American Flags on their heads and vote republican.
If you debated a teabagger concerning our economy; if you produced verifiable evidence that the republican party exists by and for the international corporations and multi millionaires; he would only think that you are attempting to trick him because you wish to steal his Hummel figurines and give them to Negroes.
Religious issues enter into all of this; that is for sure. We hear about these Muslims attempting to install Sharia Laws and such....
But the issue concerning immigrants demonstrates that religion does not have a lot to do with the Tea Bagging movement. Otherwise these supposedly staunch Christians would embrace all of these Christians coming here from south of our borders.
If Christianity were a real issue here, Tea Baggers would be holding up Hispanics as a demonstration of what God's Plan really means for all of us.
Thank God Almighty that the Spanish invasion of the New World did not take place when the followers of Mohammed controlled 2/3 of Spain a few centuries before that invasion.
Can you imagine the immigrant problem this country would be facing if the illegals were congregating inside Mosques instead of Cathedrals?
The only other countervailing consideration when examining this Teabagger Movement, is gunownership.
We already have enough guns in this country—documented and undocumented—to give just about every man, woman and child a gun. Every single one.
There is obviously a demographic line relevant to this issue of arming our citizens; it is a fight between urban people and rural people; between the population centers of our East & West Coasts and those who reside in between our coasts.
Recent legislative developments in a number of states underline this facet of the movement.
If the measure is enacted, Arizona would join Utah as the only states to specifically allow such gun rights. Utah goes one step further, allowing firearms inside campus buildings.and:
The move comes as opponents and supporters face off across the country over gun laws, with nine states this year seeking to broaden citizens' rights to tote firearms on campuses.
Supporters of Arizona's bill argue that a person's constitutional right to bear arms should not be taken away just because he or she is on a campus. They claim that allowing guns there could save lives in the event of a campus shooting.
But the bill faced widespread opposition from college and university administrators, faculty and law enforcement officials.
Opponents claimed it would put campus police at a dangerous disadvantage in trying to prevent campus shootings.
Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters.
Schools have traditionally been gun-free zones, but some states are considering loosening or changing laws when it comes to firearms on campus.Now here is a link to a list of 40 shootings in our schools and on our campuses from 1997-2007:
While some say that allowing guns on campus would increase violent incidents, others say that armed students would be better able to protect themselves in crisis situations.
(Seven states considering granting professors and students the right to carry arms on campus.)
And you will notice the words Fox News in the link.
But I think this gun thing that is so important to the Teabaggers has to do with their fears that the government is going to take away their Hummel figurines and hand them over to drug addicted Negroes. But if they are properly armed, they will not have to worry about this.
I will wrap this up with a contradiction relating to these teabagging morons who wish to arm our children:
That’s the message of the New Hampshire GOP, who is pushing a pair of bills that would prevent students from voting in their college town.
“Voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do,” said state Speaker William O’Brien. Students lack “life experience,” and “they just vote their feelings.”
Sound familiar? Humboldt County conservatives issue the same complaint when they lose county-wide elections, blaming students at Humboldt State University.
Obviously college students are so damned dumb and ill educated that we cannot give them the vote.
So we will just go ahead an arm them instead!