Teabaggers vs Founding Fathers

aka: the Rumble in Reality.

I have a problem with Bill Maher. Sometimes he is hilariously funny. Sometimes I am not even sure what he is saying should be considered for humor candidacy. Sometimes he is dead on, as in about 3/4 of the film Religilous. Sometimes I wonder how he missed the obvious problems with his argument, as in the other 1/4 of the same film. Sometimes he really nails the issue, and sometimes he does things like become an anti-vaccination crazy person mumbling into his hat as he wanders down the street yelling about black helicopters.

Look, none of us are perfect, Bill just sometimes is a better illustration of that than I am comfortable with. He tends to either strike out or hit a homer. No bunts, no singles, no walking to first. All or nothing, this guy.

Couple of days ago he caught hold of a pitch with the full bat, ripped the hide off, and sent the twine left remaining not only out of the park, but into the next neighborhood over.

“Now that they’ve finished reading the Constitution out loud, the Teabaggers must call out that group of elitist liberals whose values are so antithetical to theirs. I’m talking of course about the Founding Fathers, who the Teabaggers believe are just like them, but aren’t. One is a group of exclusively white men who live in a bygone century, have bad teeth, and think of blacks as 3/5 of a person, and the other are the Founding Fathers.”

“Now I want you Teabaggers out there to understand one thing. While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts, and what’s more you would have hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.”

“Super religious guy Glenn Beck likes to play dress up as Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine, an atheist who said churches were human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind. John Adams said this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it, which is not to say the Founders didn’t have a moral code, of course they did. They just didn’t get it from the Bible, well except for the part about it’s cool to own slaves. It’s in there folks. I didn’t make it up.”

“The Founders disagreed amongst themselves about that and most issues, but the one thing they never argued about was that political power should stay in the hands of the smartest people and out of the hands of the dumbest loudmouth slowing down the checkout line at Home Depot, and yet Sarah Palin once said of Obama we need a commander in chief not a professor of law standing at a lectern. How gay is that? Well I hate to break it to you, but Thomas Jefferson lawyer, Alexander Hamilton constitutional lawyer, James Madison lawyer, John Adams constitutional lawyer. They were not the common man of their day.”

“Ben Franklin studied scientific phenomenon like lightning and the Aurora Borealis, and were he alive today, he could probably explain to Bill O’Reilly why the tides go in and out. James Madison was fluent in Greek and Latin and could translate Virgil and Cicero. John Boehner can’t translate Fareed Zakaria, and Thomas Jefferson was an astronomer and a physicist who founded the University of Virginia, played the violin, and spoke six languages, or as Palin would say, all of them.”

…well, ok, except for the dumbass “how gay is that?” comment, which seems to have been a reference at a running joke, but fails.

Still, not bad. And an important wake up call, if only it could be heard. Like many a mythology that a group thinks it gets its identity from, it didn’t happen the way the rabble tell it. Trying to relive a history that only happened in your own mind is a special kind of crazy. The Teabaggers should at least learn enough history to figure out that they don’t fit in with their heros, only with the lies they are revising their heros to be.

,

  1. #1 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2011 - 2:17 pm

    I don’t get HBO anymore, and I do miss Bill Maher a little. Humor is based on suffering, and his funniest joke was that he was the only guy to get fired as a result of the 9/11 attacks (although not until June 2002). And he learned his lesson, not to be so “politically incorrect” anymore.

    Our political dialogue in this country is increasingly between people who subscribe to myths and the more reality-based folks like Maher.

  2. #3 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2011 - 4:14 pm

    I haven’t had HBO for many years now, but I originally subscribed to it specifically for the Maher show. I don’t agree with everything he says, but the show is always funny and entertaining.

    I’ve been able to get the audio for free since I canceled Comcast. It’s from Bill’s own site, so it’s not illegal. You can download iTunes onto Windows as well as The Mac. Of course it’s much better being able to see the show too, but that’s the way it goes.

  3. #4 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2011 - 4:17 pm

    Richard:

    Tell me that article isn’t real.

  4. #5 by Richard Warnick on January 19, 2011 - 10:13 am

    It’s from Andy Borowitz, nuff said.

  5. #6 by Larry Bergan on January 19, 2011 - 3:47 pm

    OK, I just googled Andy Borowitz and found out he does fake news. Thank Goodness!

    These days it’s hard to tell what’s real and what isn’t. You have to give me that much. In fact some fake news is more informative of real events then “real” news. We really are in trouble, aren’t we?

  6. #7 by brewski on January 19, 2011 - 4:02 pm

    Shane,

    Everything you and Bill Maher said would be true if people who support the Tea Partier, are as dumb and uneducated as you imply. So the whole premise of your piece and Bill Maher’s piece is that Tea Partiers don’t think speaking six languages is pretty impressive, don’t like physicists and scientists, think that it is cool to own slaves and think of Negroes as 3/5ths of a person.

    It is a lot more fun to think of Tea Partiers as being stupid since it allows for pithier punch lines and it makes non-Tea Partiers feel good about themselves since it gives them someone to look down at.

    By the way, this is the same phenomenon which allows racism, sexism, lookism and pretty much every other prejudice to flourish since they allow the perpetrators to feel good about themselves by giving them someone to look down at.

    But your premise just isn’t true.

    I happened to be at a party for my daughter’s school last week and I was talking to a teacher [note: teachers are educated] who also happened to be Mexican-American (although she would never call herself that). She was discussing how much she loved the Tea Party among other topics.

    Then I saw a news story about who makes up Tea Partiers, and it said:

    They are better educated than most Americans: 37 percent are college graduates, compared to 25 percent of Americans overall. They also have a higher-than-average household income, with 56 percent making more than $50,000 per year.

    CBS/NY Times

    So where is your evidence for any of the premise that your punch line? Or doesn’t it matter since you don’t need evidence to be racist, sexist, lookist, or just generally bigoted. You just have to feel it in your bones, and that is all you need.

    You are Archie Bunker.

  7. #8 by Larry Bergan on January 19, 2011 - 4:02 pm

    Thanks Shane:

    Sooo much better with the video! Maher does a great delivery!

    I wonder if the guy who was commissioned to do that painting of Jesus holding up the constitution had a sense of humor. Did you notice that guy in the front with his head in his hands?

    jesus with constitution

  8. #9 by Larry Bergan on January 19, 2011 - 4:21 pm

    brewski:

    I’m not desperate enough to need teabaggers to look down on. I just don’t like the rest of the world looking down on us because of the teagaggers.

  9. #10 by shane on January 19, 2011 - 5:14 pm

    That was beautiful brewski…..

    Based on the leaders the teabaggers have chosen, their arguments to date, and their grasp of most issues, they in fact are exactly that ignorant. And they do preach about the founding fathers, and they are wrong about them. Like most of your posts, those damn pesky facts get in the way.

    I like the way you throw in the racism red herring though. Bonus points for that.

    As a teacher, your premise that teachers are always educated is pretty damn funny. thanks for that laugh.

    Notice that not only is the cbs/times information questionable, but that there is not necessarily a correlation between degrees, and knowledge. And that is only the first of many problems in your world.

    Thanks, as always, for playing, and being a great example of the topic at hand.

  10. #11 by brewski on January 19, 2011 - 5:35 pm

    Shane,
    I understand that you fall into the category of having an Authoritarian Personality:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality

    So you can only comprehend a world where there are “leaders” and “followers” such as yourself. You are hard-wired not be able to understand a world which is not this way. It is from your childhood. Just ask Cliff.

    First of all, you have failed to provide any evidence that Tea Partiers have “chosen leaders”, think slavery is cool, think blacks count as 3/5ths of a person, think the Constitution was written with no faults, or pretty much any of your other unsupported bigoted prejudiced uneducated ill-informed venom that you spew.

    Yes I understand that having a college degree does not mean that one is smart. It is every un-smart of you to conclude that I do. But since we are talking about large populations, it is safe to say that as a general description, as CBS and the NY Times pointed out, Tea Partiers are more educated than the population at large. So for you to make general assertions about a large number of people, this evidence would refute your general assertion.

    You really aren’t very smart nor are you mildly educated, are you?

  11. #12 by shane on January 19, 2011 - 9:11 pm

    Well, you screwed up right at the personality type, and it went down hill from there.

    In fact, not only is that nearly the opposite of my personality, the entire study, if i recall correctly, was called into question over various sample issues, wasn’t it?

    Also, again, you are unable to read. The point of many of the things you want evidence to support is that they are funny. The teabaggers spend time talking up the founding fathers, who counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person for various political reasons. Would the teabaggers support their heros in that action? If not, then why the cult like hero worship, and if so, then aren’t they a frightening bunch?

    But then I didn’t expect you to have a sense of humor.

    Even the mildly educated simpletons like myself can grab hold of the occasional punchline. Surely you can manage.

  12. #13 by shane on January 19, 2011 - 9:29 pm

    in unrelated news….

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101190024

    But I am sure no teabaggers listen to Rush!

  13. #14 by brewski on January 20, 2011 - 8:44 am

    Shane,
    If you doubt the study then please bring it up with Cliff. He cites it at every chance he gets.

    Admiring the framework that our Founding Fathers put down on paper and acknowledging that several large issues were left unsolved are not contradictory ideas.

    So, for the record, yes these guys were pretty smart in particular their insight as to need to control government itself since without controls it can evolve into its own interest group and become tyrannical. The three co-equal branches of government with the various checks and balances was a stroke of genius.

    In addition, these guys were also smart enough to include an amendment process allowing for future generations to improve the document as circumstances dictated. However, the hurdles to pass an amendment are quite high and has only been done 27 times. This was also a stroke of genius.

    Slavery and other issues were left for future generations to figure out. A lot of people died as a result, as you may be aware.

    I have never heard anyone other than you refer to the admiration of the consitution and its authors as being “cult like hero worship”. Apparently that is in the eye of the beholder.

    As for frightening bunches, I am more frightened by someone who refers to the murders in Tucson as being an “accident”.

  14. #15 by shane on January 20, 2011 - 9:01 am

    It wasn’t Cliff that brought it up to me. It was you. Stand by it or STFU.

    A simple reading of the news each day shows that most of the self identified teabaggers in office wouldn’t know the framework of the nation if it fell on them, so the difference isn’t that important at that point.

    Your history lesson is nice, but it should be given to the ignorant group. Attend some teabagger gatherings and explain it to them.

    Since, as the top post points out, the people doing the “admiring” are admiring things that weren’t there, (go study up on the teabagger and repub re-writes of american history and education and get back to us) it is pretty damn cult like. You can disagree if you want to. Goddess knows you disagree with nearly every sensible thing ever posted on this site….

    Yes, it is much more frightening to hear someone call a tragedy an accident, for what ever reason, slip of the tongue or total or ignorance or somewhere in between, than to hear people actually call for shooting elected officials. To actually refer to killing office holders elected by the will of the people as “second amendment solutions.” Solutions. Killing elected representatives. A solution.

    I suppose if I said that you are an impediment to discussion on this blog, and someone should consider a second amendment solution to your posting here, that would be just fine. Maybe we could get some pictures of you and hand them out as targets at a gun rally. As long as no one turns an awkward phrase while pulling the trigger aiming at your mug shot. Cause that would really frighten you…

  15. #16 by brewski on January 20, 2011 - 9:26 am

    I take this to mean that you don’t think Cliff is a smart guy and that he should STFU.

    simple reading

    Thank you for making my point. Yes, apparently what you do is “simple reading”. This is quite a step down from “critical reading”. Also, what “news”? There is no news. There is just spun BS, like the BS that Loughner was influenced in any way at all by any political commentator at all. In fact, there is no evidence at all that he watched or listened to anyone. He seemed to spend most of his time playing violent video games and smoking pot. But the “news” as you call it goes on some wild goose chase about political discourse but nothing on what Loughner actually spent his time doing. But that wouldn’t have fit the storyline they wanted to tell regardless of the actual facts. Oh well.

    So much for “simple reading”.

  16. #17 by shane on January 20, 2011 - 11:14 am

    A rational person would notice that context might matter, and that if Cliff brought the personality issue up in the context of this discussion to me, and i replied the same, that you could indeed take it that way. You can take it any way you want. Again, thank for your illustrative presence.

    If Cliff wishes to discuss the issue, I am more than happy to do that.

    In the mean time, again, if you want to make the argument yourself, stand by it, or take Dick Cheney’s advice.

    After which you continue to be a shining example, by returning to the dead horse you continue to beat about claims about the shooting in Tucson. Notice again that I am still not making the claim you think I am. The argument that one particular person was influenced for a specific event and the argument that the general tone is embarrassing and that even the tone deaf people in the Palin camp realized this when the shooting happened is not the same thing. Try harder. You will get it. I believe in you!

    Maybe I can make up things that you never said and claim omission implies them? What is good for the goose….

    Since you fail to answer the question about the “remedy” and the gun range fund raiser, I take that to mean you approve. Could I get you to provide some signed photos for our use as targets? After all you seem to be saying that such things couldn’t possibly have an effect on people.

    No need to mail them, I will pick them up from you.

  17. #18 by brewski on January 20, 2011 - 11:24 am

    I didn’t take your idea about using my picture as a target as serious. Since you are now saying that you are I guess I have a duty to contact the FBI about specific credible threats from an unbalanced person. This site is all the evidence they will need.

  18. #19 by shane on January 24, 2011 - 1:23 pm

    So what you are saying is that there is no possible way any sane person could think that the teabagger rhetoric would threaten anyone, and the people who try to connect the shooting in Tucson with that rhetoric are fools.

    …and you should contact the FBI when the very same rhetoric is used against you, as that is a “specific credible threat(s) from an unbalanced person.”

    One last question, how do you get your foot so far into your mouth with your head simultaneously that far up your ass? Is it a special rightwing yoga position?

  19. #20 by cav on January 24, 2011 - 2:18 pm

    …and deficits don’t matter – til they do.

    IOKIYAR

  20. #21 by brewski on January 24, 2011 - 4:07 pm

    What I am saying is that there is no evidence that Loughner was aware at all of any of the rhetoric which has been referenced. His friends have said he didn’t watch the news or listen to talk radio. They did say he smoked pot, listened to heavy metal and played violent video games. So there is no circumstantial evidence at all that Loughner was influenced at all by media rhetoric. But there is circumstantial evidence that he was possibly influenced by video games, music and drugs. This is what is called the difference between some evidence, albeit a little, and no evidence at all.
    Both of which are a long way from specific threats about specific actions directed at a specific person.

    Could I get you to provide some signed photos for our use as targets? …. No need to mail them, I will pick them up from you.

    BTW, thank you for providing direct evidence that teachers are not smart.

  21. #22 by shane on January 24, 2011 - 4:25 pm

    So you are standing by your claim that your logic only works for you, and the same logic works for no one else. Good to know.

    It is worth mentioning that I have a friend of a friend that plays any number of the “violent video games” you mention who watches almost no news at all. He knew about the handing out of targets with Giffords face on them. It was a major topic (the week it happened) of discussion within those games. In fact talk of shooting representatives and “activist judges” has gotten people banned from these games it has gotten so bad. Or so he says.

    So no circumstantial evidence at all.

    All of which ignores the other major hole in your argument, that you are simply moving the goal posts anyway.

    Both of which are a long way from specific threats about specific actions directed at a specific person

    Sorry, are you claiming that when a teabagger candidate actually places the other candidates face on targets and holds a fundraiser at a gun range that isn’t a specific threat at a specific person, but when i point out that you would freak out over the same thing aimed at you, and you then freak out, I am making a threat?

    I have to hand it to you brewski, i didn’t think i could get a lower opinion of you, but you broke new ground!

  22. #23 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2011 - 4:32 pm

    The main thing about the Tea Partyers is that they peg the hypocrisy meter. That’s what Bill Maher is saying, and it’s the truth.

    For example, Senator Mike Lee believes federal disaster relief is unconstitutional and wrong… except when Utah needs federal disaster relief!

    All 242 House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act because they claim it’s a government plan (which it might be if there was a public option), but they won’t give up their own government subsidized health care.

  23. #24 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2011 - 4:46 pm

    Tea Partyers versus American history…

    The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was the culmination of a resistance movement against the Tea Act, which reduced taxes on the British East India Company. This threatened to cut into the profits of American tea smugglers.

    John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton all supported the “Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” an 18th Century prototype for Medicare.

  24. #25 by brewski on January 24, 2011 - 5:05 pm

    It is not about my logic vs your logic. It is about whether you have any evidence that your logic actually happened.

    If you have ANY evidence that Loughner listened to right wing commentators who used violent phrases, or saw Sarah Palin’s crosshairs website, or saw Jesse Kelly’s targets of Giffords, then there would be substance to the theory. But you don’t have any evidence that Loughner was aware of any of these things.

    So I am not applying my logic or your logic to anything. You are applying speculation with no evidence.

    , i didn’t think i could get a lower opinion of you, but you broke new ground!

    Considering the source, it is a compliment.

  25. #26 by cav on January 24, 2011 - 6:32 pm

    The perp can’t have been apolitical or he wouldn’t have been at the earlier Gifford rally.

    Of course, I’m only speculating.

  26. #27 by Renny on January 24, 2011 - 7:06 pm

    This is best progressives have to vilify a real threat to their gravy train agenda. A psycho’s mama’s boy who wanted to go to Juliard. Progressives have stooped to this level and are truly desperate and terrified that their already slipping grip of influence is about to become non existent.

    America isn’t buying it, The average
    American knows crazy qwhen they see it, and the left(out) end of the Democrat party is all of that, crazy.

  27. #28 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2011 - 10:06 pm

    Just another in a long series of “isolated incidents” I suppose? I have pointed out elsewhere that the Tucson shooter is clearly a right-winger, but if necessary I can submit the evidence again.

  28. #29 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2011 - 10:27 pm

    Chris Matthews, David Corn and Eric Boehlert talk about Glenn Beck’s relentless “shoot them in the head” rhetoric and other “gun talk” and paranoid fantasies on the right.

    See also: Glenn Beck’s Rhetoric Inspires More Death Threats.

  29. #30 by Renny on January 25, 2011 - 3:37 am

    Well that is all made up for the purposes of the left’s desperate attempt to get some traction from anything against what it is terrified of, the Tea Party.

    Here is what Loughner really is, and it is a left wing pot smoking nut case. There smear won’t stick to the Tea Party, in fact, it will seen for the transparent attempt to find something, anything, to stem what is to become the extinction of Democrat party, the progressive wing anyway.

  30. #31 by shane on January 25, 2011 - 8:09 am

    The only people for whom it isn’t sticking, is the teabagger members.

    The truth is that while there is no totally solid evidence either way, as the top post states, the teabaggers are the ones with the guilty looks on their faces. But you all keep screaming at the top of your lungs how it ain’t so….

    …while Rush talks about how we need to take guns away from liberals and arm teabaggers. Keep it up guys. It is working great!

  31. #32 by cav on January 25, 2011 - 9:14 am

    It’s the Mad Hatter, and what ever he’s dosed the tea with that scares me! I don’t like not knowin’.

    And that ideologically ‘pure’ arsenal. Why, we’re just a step away from cluster bombs and nuke-tipped drones. But bombs, and drones, and guns, don’t kill people…still, somehow…mysteriously…

    Back away from the trigger, or I’ll vaporize you.

    Should be fun.

  32. #33 by Renny on January 25, 2011 - 9:22 am

    You really are disconnected from reality. No one but people I read about here are connecting this progressive nut job to the Tea Party, and fortunately for progressives who are trying to, the American people are not stooping so low as to apply the same rubric to that end of the political spectrum.

    If you were a tory in 1775, the Tea Baggers then were all nuts and traitors, read the London papers of the time. Tarring ans feathering resulted in death 9 times out of ten. Our founders were in the eyes of many a Briton…flat crazy.

    Ask then Mass. governor Hutchinson what to be Tea Baggers were like, after they burned all his possessions and then demolished his house when he promulgated the Stamp Act, 1765. Seems like you don’t know much about the extremism that founded this nation.

    Hey, once again, aiming at the wrong target, who is Rush?

  33. #34 by cav on January 25, 2011 - 9:23 am

    Go banksters and mercenary warmongers.

    (snark tags assumed)

  34. #35 by Richard Warnick on January 25, 2011 - 9:29 am

    Renny = Glenn in case anyone is wondering.

    You repeat the lies about the Tucson shooter with the same determination as you claim global warming is a hoax.

  35. #36 by cav on January 25, 2011 - 9:36 am

    Renny (isn’t glenn a tad more eloquent?), “When the Rapture comes, can I have your car?”

  36. #37 by cav on January 25, 2011 - 10:16 am

    Tuesday 25 January 2011

    Climate sceptic ‘misled Congress over funding from oil industry’

    Patrick Michaels, fellow at the Cato Institute, claimed 3% of his funding came from industry, later revealed that figure to be 40%

    A leading climate sceptic patronised by the oil billionaire Koch brothers faced a potential investigation today on charges that he misled Congress on the extent of his funding from the oil industry.

    The Koch brothers knew how much he was getting and should be nailed for conspiracy too.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-sceptic-misled-congress

  37. #38 by cav on January 25, 2011 - 12:43 pm

    Ex-EMC analysts admitted they were sometimes told to falsify loan-level performance data provided to the ratings agencies who blessed Bear’s billion-dollar deals. But according to depositions and documents in the Ambac lawsuit, Bear’s misdeeds went even deeper. They say senior traders under Tom Marano, who was a Senior Managing Director and Global Head of Mortgages for Bear and is now CEO of Ally’s mortgage operations, were pocketing cash that should have gone to securities holders after Bear had already sold them bonds and moved the loans off its books.

    Pocketing cash. Think the folks will understand that bit of complexity. We hear how it was all too complicated and murky and they use alot of financial terms that us mere mortals can’t understand. Pocketing cash. I get that.

  38. #39 by Uncle Rico on January 27, 2011 - 7:45 am

    Meghan McCain called Michele Bachman a poor man’s Sarah Palin. Is that even possible?

  39. #40 by Richard Warnick on January 27, 2011 - 9:25 am

    Even though I sometimes agree with her, I think it’s appropriate to ask who Meghan McCain is. She’s just another blogger.

  40. #41 by Larry Bergan on January 27, 2011 - 9:52 pm

    Weird, huh?

    From here:

    glenn clone

  41. #42 by Richard Warnick on January 28, 2011 - 5:25 pm

    Separated at birth?

  42. #43 by Larry Bergan on January 28, 2011 - 9:01 pm

    Like father, like son?

    Photoshopped mug shot?

    Who the crap knows?

    “Only in America” used to be a humorous way to say we laughed at ourselves. These days it’s harder to laugh. Bullets in brains just don’t invoke much hilarity in a civil society. Glenn Beck and his followers think it does.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: