Will Beck run off the Teabaggers now?

Read any thread with "teabagger" in the title.

I've read a lot of those threads. Most of them come down to this:
1) Mocking teabaggers (especially when they have signs with poor wording/misspellings)
2) Showing that there are a large number of tea-baggers who believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
3) Pointing out that a lot of the things they are objecting to were also done under the previous President.
4) Saying that maybe there is a number of them who are racist.

I have never seen anyone espousing that
Sword Of Truth said:
anyone who suggests that trillion dollar deficits are dangerously destructive almost to the point of treason by those who authorize them is being smeared as racist.

I have seen people saying that position is stupid, but not racist.
 
This is mainstream teabagger. Look at the Texas textbook controversy.
Words fail.

Daredelvis

Actually, McCarthy wasn't wrong in his assertion that communists loyal to the Soviet Union had infiltrated the government. If he had simply brought his concerns to the FBI (the actual counter-intel arm of the Federal government - they had already ferreted out most of the communists who were loyal to the USSR) he wouldn't have had a chance to use his grandstanding as an attempt to score political points and attack political enemies. There was a strong, bipartisan anti-communist alliance. The problem was that "communist" or "communist sympathizer" became accusations with which to win partisan advantage - for example, Truman in his 1948 campaign: ‘If anybody in this country is friendly to the Communists it is the Republicans’. It's the same dynamic with regard to current accusations of being a terrorist sympathizer.

It wasn't that he was wrong, it was that what he did was wrong: publicly accusing people of essentially treason and holding what were in essence show trials. If he was really interested in investigation, it would be have been done quietly.

David Horowitz castigates Ann Coulter for her simplistic defense of McCarthy (more an attack on liberals) in this article. (Horowitz grew up as a member of the CPUSA and knew people who actually performed errands appointed to them by the CPUSA the orders for which came from the USSR. I was just reading one of his books where he recounted an old friend confessing to him about running an errand to Mexico for the party and finding out that the goal of her errand was to attempt to help Trotsky's assassin.)

Is it the case that liberals like Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy sided with the enemy? Of course not. They were anti-Communists, hated by the left as “cold war liberals.” And they were not alone. There were many liberals – Scoop Jackson and Jeanne Kirkpatrick among them – who were just as worthy defenders of America and prosecutors of the anti-Communist cause. Until 1963, Ronald Reagan was a pro-Kennedy, anti-Communist, cold war liberal. In Coulter’s book, Democrats (whom she inexplicably conflates with liberals) come under blistering attack for their perfidious role in the so-called “McCarthy Era.” A lot of what she says about Democrats is true, but nearly half the members of McCarthy's own Senate Subcommittee on Governmental Operations were Democrats (as were members of the later-demonized House's Un-American Activities Committee). Bobby Kennedy was a McCarthy staff lawyer. Not all Democrats were liberals and not all liberals sided with the enemy. In 1968, Tom Hayden – a radical supporter of the Communist cause in Vietnam -- organized a riot at the Democratic Party convention in order to destroy the presidential candidacy of Humbert Humphrey. The reason? Humphrey was an anti-Communist, pro-Vietnam War liberal.

By failing to draw a clear line between satirical exaggeration and historical analysis, by refusing to credit the laudable role played by patriotic, anti-Communist liberals like Truman, Kennedy and Humphrey, Coulter has compromised her case and undermined her attempt to correct a record that desperately needs correction. Liberals have – just as she charges – distorted postwar history to protect the guilty. Franklin Roosevelt did laugh off the information that Alger Hiss -- one of his top aides -- was a Soviet spy and did -- despite the warning -- elevate Hiss to be his one of his chief advisers both at Yalta and at the founding conference of the UN.

Democrats did allow the Communists to penetrate their party and their administrations in the 1930s and 1940s. The Truman Administration did dismiss Republican charges of Communist influence as partisan politics and was lackadaisical before 1947 in taking the internal Communist threat seriously. But in 1947 all that changed. Truman instituted a comprehensive loyalty program to ferret out Communist influence in government. It was the Truman Administration that prosecuted Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. In fact the decisive battles of this era took place inside liberalism. It was Walter Reuther – a socialist – who purged the Communist from the CIO and it was Truman’s anti-Communist policies that provoked the Communists into leaving the Democratic Party and forming the Progressive Party to oppose his re-election in 1948.

The opening of the Soviet archives and the de-classification of the Venona decryptions showed that Mccarthy was, on the whole, pretty much right, although frankly, McCarthy was late to party and it was already being dealt with. McCarthy wasn't wrong, he was just an ass who wanted to score political points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Ongoing_debate

Challenging such efforts aimed at the "rehabilitation" of McCarthy, historian John Earl Haynes argues that McCarthy's attempts to "make anti-communism a partisan weapon" actually "threatened [the post-War] anti-Communist consensus," thereby ultimately harming anti-Communist efforts more than helping.[113] After reviewing evidence from Venona and other sources, Haynes concluded that, of 159 people identified on lists used or referenced by McCarthy, evidence was substantial that nine had aided Soviet espionage efforts. He expressed an opinion that a majority of those on the lists could have legitimately been considered security risks, but that a substantial minority could not.

Former Reagan Administration Secretary of Education and conservative writer William Bennett has been quoted as writing critically of McCarthy in his 2007 book America: The Last Best Hope:[115]

The cause of anti-communism, which united millions of Americans and which gained the support of Democrats, Republicans and independents, was undermined by Sen. Joe McCarthy … McCarthy addressed a real problem: disloyal elements within the U.S. government. But his approach to this real problem was to cause untold grief to the country he claimed to love … Worst of all, McCarthy besmirched the honorable cause of anti-communism. He discredited legitimate efforts to counter Soviet subversion of American institutions.
 
You're kidding right? I guess substantive is a subjective term.

No, I'm not. I don't think "less taxes, less deficit and less government" is substantive at all, given that they didn't complain when the last guy grew the deficit and grew the government and had higher taxes than the current guy.
 
No, I'm not. I don't think "less taxes, less deficit and less government" is substantive at all, given that they didn't complain when the last guy grew the deficit and grew the government and had higher taxes than the current guy.

Obama is spending significantly more than Bush did... but you don't think that's a problem anyone might reasonably object to because the tax rates are lower. Yeah, um... that doesn't actually make sense. We pay for government spending, one way or another, and if the government spends more, we will pay more.
 
The opening of the Soviet archives and the de-classification of the Venona decryptions showed that Mccarthy was, on the whole, pretty much right, although frankly, McCarthy was late to party and it was already being dealt with. McCarthy wasn't wrong, he was just an ass who wanted to score political points.
McCarthy was wrong. He was wrong in his accusations against VOA. He was wrong (and outside his authority) to demand books removed from State Department libraries. He was wrong to promote a propaganda culture that painted anything to the left of Herbert Hoover as an agent of Moscow.

Let's say someone goes missing and a prosecutor charges 8 people with murdering him in a satanic ritual. If it later turns out that he went hiking in the mountains and fell off a cliff, the prosecutor deserves about as much credit for being right as McCarthy does.
 
The Tea Party has yet to put forth any substantive objections.

You're kidding right? I guess substantive is a subjective term.

Can you point some out? I've seen lots of evasiveness from those defending the Tea Party folk in a few threads, but I can't think of any actual substance coming from the Tea Party (in threads or in the media), just a bunch of slogans and hyperbole.

By all means show us some examples.
 
You're kidding right? I guess substantive is a subjective term.
No it isn't. The teatrash have the numbers to shout down a congress critter trying to conduct a town hall, or to gang-stomp an old man, but they can't must the numbers to send a racist scurrying to the margins of the crowd?

Tells me they don't want to, so fie on all of them. They have the racist cooties on their heads from their indifference.

They can't really cite what programs they want cut, and they can't explain why they think that there are actually "death panels" in the health care reform bill. All rhetoric and no facts.
 
Last edited:
Obama is spending significantly more than Bush did...
Four times more.

Fixing problems created during his predecessor's tenure, including two wars, a dangerously un(or mis)regulated banking system, and a minerals management service that we've known has been doing coke off the bums of the folks they were supposed to be regulating for years.

So if by "substantive" you mean "completely lacking any perspective or context" then you guys might have something there.
 
And before Obama took office, Bush was the king of spending and growing government. No, they do not have any substantive complaints.

Bush's biggest expansion of spending came at the very end of his term in office, with TARP. And plenty of people DID get upset about that, including lots of people on the right.

All you've got to defend your position is a tu quoque fallacy, thai.
 
Fixing problems created during his predecessor's tenure

You can make whatever excuses you want to for why Obama is spending more money than Bush (well, actually, you aren't even doing a good job at that, since some of your examples have nothing to do with spending levels), but the fact remains: we're spending more, and with less revenue. And that IS a substantive issue. You can disagree with their assessment of that spending, but you're either being foolish or dishonest by dismissing it as irrelevant or trivial.
 
Fixing problems created during his predecessor's tenure, including two wars, a dangerously un(or mis)regulated banking system, and a minerals management service that we've known has been doing coke off the bums of the folks they were supposed to be regulating for years.

So if by "substantive" you mean "completely lacking any perspective or context" then you guys might have something there.

Fixing Bush's deficit by making it four times bigger is like fixing Bush's foreign policy by invading eight more countries.
 
Bush's biggest expansion of spending came at the very end of his term in office.....

Right, because before then, he didn't turn the budget upside down. :rolleyes:

What's fallacy is to say that the Tea Party has substantive arguments. Sure, plenty of people didn't like TARP. However, they didn't form a Tea Party over it and start accusing Bush of being an illegal immigrant who wants to enslave all the white people.
 
You can make whatever excuses you want to for why Obama is spending more money than Bush (well, actually, you aren't even doing a good job at that, since some of your examples have nothing to do with spending levels), but the fact remains: we're spending more, and with less revenue. And that IS a substantive issue.

The "less revenue" part will self correct in a few months when the inheritance tax is re-instated and the cap gains tax goes back up.

What Obama is spending money on now goes more into the lower levels of the ecconomy than did the brain-dead tax cuts that passed on the Shrub's watch. This is always a good thing.
 
Fixing Bush's deficit by making it four times bigger is like fixing Bush's foreign policy by invading eight more countries.

The deficit is not the biggest problem that the Shrub left us. TRhere was also the rotting infrastructure and the looting of the commons that left the working class struggling for a living while the investor class got fat and useless. There is a need to spend some money to rebuild our industrial base and fix the environmental harm done by an Inerior Department intent on clear-cutting the commons.

And we need to take care of a lot of disabled veterans from the idiot's invasion of Iraq.

If the GOP is so worried about deficits, why are idiots like McConell and Bohner whining about taxes and trying to hold the unemployed citizens hostage to preserve the Shrub's idiot tax cuts for the fat class?
 
I am certainly not in agreement with the Tea Partiers but I do think we marginalize their concerns at our own peril. OK, Bush had deficits and they certainly increased under his administration. Tea Partiers did not protest so loudly then. Later Obama's deficits increased by an even higher rate.

I think it is disingenous of us liberals/Democrats to complain that the Tea Partiers did not act under Bush and are under Obama. It is not an equivalence of scale and protesters were clearly moved when teh spending got far beyond what tehy could tolerate. Fine by me. Stop attacking them for that. They have the right to protest and their logic is not ridiculous.

It is like me swimming the other day. The pool was a tepid 80F. Over time it heated up to about 85F and although a bit too warm for my tastes I did not complain. I went to the hot tub and it was a scalding 105F. Sorry, I could not take it and got out and my protest about it being too hot was a subjective decision on when the spending, oops I mean the heat, got too much for me.

All that being said, I think Tea Partiers are probably quicker to react to the spending now because it is a political opponent in charge.
 
All that being said, I think Tea Partiers are probably quicker to react to the spending now because it is a political opponent in charge.

Actually, they are just too dimwitted to understand where the money comes from and why the way that the Shrub spent it was totally stupid, wasteful and damaging to the very fabric of society.

Just about every penny the Shrub spent went to the investor class through as few hands as possibler, which is a sure-fire way to start a depression.

Obama is trying to redirect it to the lower levels where it will actually do something about creating jobs.

The middle class produce the greatest number of jobs in a healthy ecconomy.

Monopolies create mostly minimal wage jobs and fat bonuses for the investor class. When you give a bazillionaire a tax break, he is not going to create more jobs hjere, if he has to pay a living wage. He will create them in China, or invest in something that he can dress up to look like a valuable financial instrument and screw millions of people out of their life's savings.

Wall Street has become a Ponzi scheme, and the teabaggers have walked right into the snare that the investor class laid for them.
 
Another analogy:

Capt. Bush is piloting a plane that begins to lose altitude. To pull it up, he begins to throttle up. When his shift is over, Capt. Obama takes the stick only to discover that the plane is losing altitude at a faster rate than it and throttles up even more to prevent the whole thing from crashing. Then, a small portion of the passengers complain that Capt. Obama expended a huge amount of resources and wasn't even gaining altitude.
 

Back
Top Bottom