Independent (ĭn’dĭ-pĕn’dənt), n., One that is independent, especially a voter, officeholder, or political candidate who is not committed to a political party.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 24th, 2011

Politics 101

Independents have no Political Philosophy and can be Swayed by a Candidate’s Charisma or Populist Issue

Independents have little interest in politics.  They don’t follow the issues.  Have no philosophical basis to form a political belief.  And have no political beliefs.  As demonstrated by their voting for both Republicans.  And Democrats.  Showing that they can easily vote for and against the same fundamental beliefs.

Independents don’t understand what a party platform is.  The philosophical basis for a political party.  The things the party believes in.  And tries to advance.  In the United States there are 2 major political parties.  The Republicans.  And the Democrats.  Who stand for very different things.

Yet at elections the Independents form that great center of the electorate that tends to decide elections.  So both Republicans and Democrats try to woo them.  Because they both feel they have an equal chance.  Even though they couldn’t be more different in their political philosophy.  Because Independents have no political philosophy.  And can be swayed by a candidate’s charisma.  Or a populist issue.

There are no Independent Conventions to Nominate Independent Candidates because Independents Stand for Nothing

Democrats are for active government and income redistribution via high taxes.  Republicans are for limited government and low taxes.  The Independents are neither Republicans nor Democrats.  And that’s the extent of their party platform.

There are few Independents in politics.  Often a politician will run as an Independent after they lose the primary election for their own party.  Sort of like having a temper tantrum.  They weren’t a good enough Republican or Democrat to win the support of Republican or Democrat voters in the primary election.  So they stamp their feet and whine, “I’ll run as an Independent then in the general election.”  Where they stand a good chance of winning.  Because there are a lot of people out there who don’t vote according to any political philosophy.  Like they do during the primaries.  The Independents.

There are no party caucuses for Independents.  No Independent debates.  No Independent primary elections.  No Independent conventions to nominate an Independent candidate.  Because Independents stand for nothing.  For they are the disengaged.  The uninformed.  And out of touch.  They only think about politics at election time.  And then base their vote on how they feel at that time.  Choosing their candidate by who charms them the most.  Or stands for the populist issue they are most familiar with.

Independents eschew Republicans and Democrats yet Vote Republican or Democrat in the End

Independents eschew Republicans and Democrats.  They’re above them.  They study the issues.  And make informed decisions.  They don’t just vote the party line.  Or so they say.  But they often do.  Vote the party line.  By voting either Republican or Democrat in the end.  Often without a clue of the consequences of their vote.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Moderate (mŏd’ər-ĭt), n., One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2011

Politics 101

Moderates just want to Get Along with Everyone and Believe in Consensus and Bipartisanship

Moderates are people who like to pick and choose.  A little from this philosophy.  And a little from that philosophy.  For example, a moderate Catholic may approve of abortion.  Because they disagree with the extreme view of no abortions in Catholicism.  Of course, there is no such thing as being a little bit Catholic.  Just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

A moderate, then, has no philosophical basis.  And doesn’t have a definite opinion.  They don’t know what they want.  But they know what they don’t want.  Extreme opinions.  Even just your run of the mill opinions.  To them everything is just an opinion.  And no opinion is right.  Or wrong.  It’s just an opinion.  And they don’t like to face the extreme unpleasantness that is life.  They’d rather avoid addressing problems that can make life unpleasant.  So they procrastinate.  And are great procrastinators.  Their motto is this.  Why solve today what we can solve tomorrow?  And then they hope that tomorrow never comes.

Moderates just want to get along with everyone.  They believe in consensus.  Reaching across the aisle.  Bipartisanship.  For they believe that there is a middle ground in every issue.  And they desperately seek the middle ground to avoid confrontation.  Which means that you can lie to them.  If you tell them what they want to hear.  And they will believe you.  Because they want to believe you.  Especially if you’re telling them what they want to hear.

Adolf Hitler lied Charismatically to Win Votes and Seize Power

Moderates are good people.  Who can be led astray.  Such as in Nazi Germany.  The vast majority of Germans were not Nazis.  If they were they wouldn’t have needed such an oppressive police state.  And there would have been no Gestapo.  But there was a police state.  And a Gestapo.

Most Germans just wanted to work.  And support their families.  Which was hard to do coming out of World War I, the Great Depression and hyperinflation.  Caused by Keynesian policies.  That is, printing money.  To pay their war reparations per a rather harsh Versailles Treaty.

Adolf Hitler knew how to sweet talk the masses.  Tell them what they wanted to hear.  And he did.  He was charismatic.  A populist.  Could give a great speech.  And he lied through his teeth.  The people heard what they wanted to hear.  And they voted for him.  That’s right.  Hitler didn’t seize power in a military coup.  He seized power by winning votes.  And passing populist laws.  After he had failed to seize power in a military coup.

Moderates may not Know what they Want but they Sure Know what they Don’t Want, such as National Health Care

In the U.S. the moderates typically determine elections.  Because about 40% of the people are limited-government conservatives.  About 20% are big-government liberals.  And the rest are moderates.  And they tend to vote Democrat.  Because the Democrats say the things they want to hear.  Consensus.  Bipartisan.  Working together to solve the people’s problems.

Some big-government liberals run as conservatives during elections.  And they lie so well that often a large percentage of these moderates vote Democrat.  Because, for some reason, they want to vote conservative.  But only if the conservative is a Democrat.

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama campaigned as moderates.  In fact, some even compared Barack Obama to the great Ronald Reagan.  A conservative Republican.  And it worked.  Clinton and Obama won their elections.  By lying.  They campaigned as limited-government moderates.  But they governed as big-government liberals.  They swung so far to the left that they both lost their mid-term elections.  Clinton lost the midterms for trying to pass Hillarycare.  And Obama loss the midterms for passing Obamacare.

The moderates may not know what they want.  But they know what they don’t want.  And they sure don’t want national health care.

The Consequence of having no Philosophical Basis is that Decisions are based on Populist Views and Feelings

Moderates don’t like extreme opinions.  Like the government can’t spend money it doesn’t have.  So Democrats campaign saying they will get the rich to pay their fair share.  Which sounds good.  Because moderates aren’t rich.  They’re hardworking middle class people.  So moderates vote Democrat because it seems like the nice thing to do.  The fair thing to do.  So the government continues to spend money it doesn’t have.  Knowing that they can continue in their irresponsible ways as long as they can get moderates to believe their lies.

This is the consequence of having no philosophical basis.  Decisions are based on populist views.  And feelings.  Which a cunning big-government liberal politician can always exploit.  And they have to if they ever hope to win an election.  For they aren’t going to convert the 40% of the people who are limited-government conservatives.  Because limited-government conservatives actually believe in something.  And tend to be impervious to their lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #86: “Smug, all-knowing condescension camouflages a vacuous philosophical basis.” –Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 6th, 2011

Ronald Reagan had a B.A. in Economics, Served in the Army, was President of SAG and Served Two Terms as California Governor

The Left hated Ronald Reagan.  They belittled him.  Made snarky comments like ‘he’s just an actor’.  That he wasn’t smart enough to be president.  And not qualified.  For all he could do was give a good speech.  Because he was just an actor.

Yes, he was an actor.  But he did go to college.  Had a B.A. in economics and sociology.   Enlisted in the Army and served in the cavalry.  Earned a commission in the Reserve Officer Corps just before World War II.  Served stateside during World War II making training films for the army.  Severely nearsighted, the Army classified him for limited service only.  Which meant he couldn’t serve overseas.  He served 8 years as president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG).  During the height of the Red Scare.  Which cemented his anti-communist credentials.  (Yes, there were communists in Hollywood.  As well as in the FDR administration.)  Hosted General Electric Theater for 8 years.  He visited General Electric R&D facilities.  About 135.  Saw job creation up close during his tenure with GE.  Helping to hone his economic views.  He served two terms as California governor.  During the peak of the Vietnam anti-war protests.  When he gave his concession speak at the 1976 Republican Convention, delegates mumbled that they had nominated the wrong man (Gerald Ford).  At the age of 69, Reagan became president.  Despite snarky comments like ‘he’s too old to be president’.

So Reagan had the education.  And a long list of experience on his resume.  Experience that took him through some of the most defining moments of American history.  And spent 8 years as governor of the most populous state.  Eight years of solid executive experience.  So he was every bit qualified for office.  The people who attacked him just didn’t like his ideology.  And the fact that he was very good in elected office.  So they used smug, all-knowing condescension to belittle him.  And it worked well.  For they did not like Reagan on American college campuses.  Where kids parroted what they heard in the media.  And on their favorite shows.  But didn’t have an original thought in their heads.

Incidentally, Barack Obama got a B.S. in political science from Columbia.  And a law degree from Harvard.  He served 3 terms as Illinois state senator.  And 2/3 of a term as U.S. senator.  He had no military experience.  No executive experience.  And his only other experience was confined to academe.  Or law.  Yet those who said Ronald Reagan was not qualified to be president had no problem with Barack Obama.  Go figure.

George W. Bush had an M.B.A. from Harvard, served in the Texas ANG, ran businesses and served two terms as Texas Governor

But compared to George W. Bush, they held Ronald Reagan in great esteem.  For the Left just flat out called Bush an idiot.  And simply too stupid to be president.

For being stupid Bush was pretty well educated.  He had an B.A. in history from Yale.  A good thing for presidents to know.  History.  And he earned an M.B.A. from Harvard.  The only president to have one.  He served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam.  He then worked in the oil industry.  Started up some oil exploration companies.  Bush Exploration, for one.   This merged with Spectrum 7.  Where he served as chairman.  The oil glut of the Eighties hit that company hard.  It later merged with Harken Energy.   Where he served on the board.  He helped Dad run for president.  Bought a piece of the Texas Rangers after that.  Spent five years there as the managing general partner.  Built the value of the team so well that when he sold his chunk he got uber rich.  Then he served about one and a half terms as Texas governor.

This is the man the Left said was too stupid to be president.  This man who had an M.B.A. from Harvard.  One of the most pretentious Ivy League schools.  A man who worked in the energy industry.  And understood it.  Who knew how to run a business.  And did.  Even ran a Major League baseball team.  And had some 6 years of solid executive experience as the governor of the second most populous state.  So he, too, was every bit qualified for office.  The people who attacked him just didn’t like his ideology.  And the fact that he was very good in elected office.  And in the business world.  So they used smug, all-knowing condescension to belittle him.  And it worked well.  For they did not like Bush on American college campuses either.  Where kids parroted what they heard in the media.  And on their favorite shows.  But they didn’t have an original thought in their heads.  Some things just never change.

Incidentally, Barack Obama got a B.S. in political science from Columbia.  And a law degree from Harvard.  He served 3 terms as Illinois state senator.  And 2/3 of a term as U.S. senator.  He had no military experience.  No executive experience.  And his only other experience was confined to academe.  Or law.  Yet those who said George W. Bush was not qualified to be president had no problem with Barack Obama.  Go figure.

They make their Snarky Little Comments about the Greed of Corporations while Greedily Demanding more Government Benefits

And speaking of these college geniuses, you can hear a lot of them doing what they do best.  Whining.  They’re protesting up on Wall Street.  Cause they hate capitalism.  Because their tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt hasn’t given them a high paying job.  And because they hate capitalism you know they don’t have a business degree.  Or anything that can be used in the business world.  Further, if they don’t want to be a toady to corporate America, they probably don’t have a degree that would help them gain employment with a corporation.  Like a chemistry degree.  An engineering degree.  Or a physics degree.  No.  These would have been too corporate.  And possibly too harmful to the environment.  Not to mention hard.

These protestors are living the protest life of the Sixties.  Complete with free love.  And drugs.  Which, incidentally, is why they went to college.  Not to sit in some boring-ass lectures and take exams with math on them.  And that’s why they’re so angry.  Because during difficult economic times corporations don’t have the money to waste on wasteful degrees like women’s studies.  Art.  Poetry.  French.  Anthropology.  Or some other liberal art or social science.  No.  The only high paying job opportunities for these are in academe.  Or in government.  When they are flush with taxpayer cash.  Thanks to corporations providing real jobs for taxpayers.  But when there are no real jobs, there are no tax dollars to pay for these phony baloney jobs.

So they make their snarky little comments about the greed of corporations.  About the greed of the bankers.  About the greed of Republicans.  All the while they are greedily demanding more government benefits.  Paid for by the very people they are protesting against.  While enjoying the very things these greedy corporations have given them.  They are using wireless technology to live-tweet their latest list of whines.  All technology created by the very corporations they hate.  Produced under the system they want to purge from America.  Capitalism.

If it wasn’t for Capitalism they’d be Working in a Field Somewhere for Subsistence Right Now

Look at Apple.  And Steve Jobs.  Look at what he created.  And ask yourself this.  Why Steve Jobs and not someone in Cuba?  Someone in North Korea?  Someone in the former Soviet Union?  These are three hardcore socialist regimes these protestors admire.  Who have egalitarian systems of government.  Where there is fair-shared misery.  No one lives better than anyone else.  Except those within the party apparatchik.  Which these protestors naturally assume they would be part of.  Once America became fair.  And they stripped the rich of all their wealth.  For the benefit of mankind.  And by mankind I mean these protestors.

Cuba even has a national health care system that is so impressive that Michael Moore made a movie about it.  While condemning the inferior American system.  Cuba is great.  They care about their people there.  So much so that they don’t let them leave.  For fear of the substandard love they’ll get in another nation.  Still some of these fools try to escape their utopia.  By crossing shark-infested water in some of the most unseaworthy boats.  To get to Florida.  In the USA.  To the country that the Wall Street protestors say is worse than Cuba.  If only they had iPhones in Cuba they could get their live-tweet feed from Wall Street so they would know that things are better there.  So they can stay there.  In their utopia.

Of course, it’s not better there.  And Steve Jobs wasn’t a Cuban.  He wasn’t a North Korean.  He wasn’t a Soviet.  He was an American.  An entrepreneur.  And a capitalist.  Who made Apple a rich corporation by giving us things we can’t live without.  Things we never asked for.  Things we didn’t even know about.  Until after he created them.  And he told us how cool they were.

They can make snarky, all-knowing, condescending remarks all day long about corporate greed and the evil of capitalism.  But if it wasn’t for capitalism they’d be working in a field somewhere for subsistence right now.  And the fact that they don’t know this shows how empty headed and brainwashed they are.  And what a piss-poor job our public schools and colleges are doing.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #86: “Smug, all-knowing condescension camouflages a vacuous philosophical basis.” –Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 4th, 2011

Did the Ivy League make George W. Bush an Idiot?  And, if so, is Barack Obama also an Idiot?

Have you ever been belittled by a liberal?  After getting pulled into a conversation, say, about George W. Bush?  Or Ronald Reagan?  I have.  And often.  So often that I avoid these debates with liberals anymore.  Because you can’t debate with liberals.

I remember after George W. Bush won reelection.  Two liberals were having a discussion near me at work.  They just couldn’t believe how stupid the American people were.  One was a fifty year old hippy who still dressed like she was 20.  The other had a love affair with France.  Even loved Napoleon.  Funny.  As she hated George W. Bush for waging war.  And he didn’t wage half the war Napoleon did.

Anyway, I piped up.  I said why are Americans so stupid?  For reelecting George W. Bush?  They said because George W. Bush was an idiot.  I asked them to elaborate.  They did not.  Apparently, there was nothing more to say.  No specific examples.  No discussion of underlying philosophies.  Just that George W. Bush was an idiot.  Case closed.  An idiot, I might add, that was educated in their beloved liberal Ivy League.  The same Ivy League that educated Barack Obama.  And the majority of the power players in Washington.

Liberals know Everything and can Say Anything no matter how Silly and Asinine it Is

Of course, it didn’t end there.  Because I didn’t accept ‘he’s an idiot’ as an intelligible response to my question why were Americans so stupid, guess what?  I was stupid.  I was one of the great uneducated masses who should not be allowed to vote in their preferred world.  Then the ridicule came.

Their only response to my question was name calling.  Of the president.  And the American people.  No ideological discussion whatsoever.  And they laughed at me with that all knowing condescension.  They were liberals.  They knew everything.  And could say anything.  No matter how silly and asinine it was.  And because I question them I hated the poor.  I was a warmonger.  And a fascist.

The last was rather amusing.  Because I was a conservative.  Still am.  And conservatives hate fascism.  Or corporatism.  Big time government involvement in the private sector economy.  Like they want.  Making them the fascists.  Not me.  From what I could glean they were in favor of the state redistributing wealth.  Taking from the rich to give to the poor.  Like the hippy protestors of the Sixties.  They just wanted to stick it to the man.  Have sex (the old hippy had a bumper sticker saying something about being proud to be an ex-porn star.  I don’t think she was.  She just liked being provocative.  And having lots of sex.  Based on the conversations she had within earshot).  And, of course, decriminalize pot.

Liberals hate Corporations, Bankers and Republicans

They were your quintessential liberals.  Ignorant.  They hated Republicans because they want to take their freedoms away.  Because it’s Republicans that keep drugs illegal.  It’s Republicans that want to criminalize abortion.  Take away your welfare.  Who refuse to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.  Who let people get rich.  And refused to confiscate rich people’s wealth when they get rich.

They hate Republicans because they are too friendly to corporate America.  Who think more of their shareholders (the corporation owners who hire people for the express purpose of making a profit for them).  Than the American people.  And enslave the American people to maximize profits.  By charging high prices for expensive goods.  Charging interest on loaned money.  And tricking American people into living beyond their means and accumulating debt.  That they charge interest on.

Liberals hate corporations.  And Republicans.  They would like to abolish interest.  And all debt.  From sovereign debt.  To credit card debt.  Just make it go away.  And let the evil bankers just write it off.  They would like to have free health care for everyone.  And a minimum living wage for everyone.  Whether they work or not.  That’s their kind of freedom.  Of course, to have it they’ll have to bring back the institution of slavery.

Liberals Created an Aristocracy for themselves by Taxing the Productive People to Excess

Yes, you heard right.  Their freedom is another’s slavery.  For they want a welfare state.  Where the poor get everything they could ever want from cradle to grave.  And how do you pay for all of this free stuff?  By taxation, of course.  Before the government redistributes any wealth someone has to create it first.  People with jobs.  Or who own businesses.  People that have value that trade with others who have value in the free market economy.  We are traders.  And you can’t trade with someone who doesn’t produce anything of value.

Money came into being as a way to make this trading things of value easier.  People traded their things of value (goods and/or services) for money.  Then traded that money for other things of value they wanted.  It made going to the market a whole lot easier.  You didn’t have to find people to trade with who had what you wanted while having what they wanted.  You simply found what you wanted.  And paid for it.  With the money you had from selling your things of value.

Government grew from taxing these productive people.  At first just enough to provide the public goods of society.  Then liberals created an aristocracy for themselves by taxing the productive people to excess.  For liberals don’t create anything of value.  They get worthless college degrees and get worthless jobs.  In the public sector.  Or in the private sector that survives on public sector funding, i.e., crony capitalism.  They are parasites.  Living off of the productive people.  Who pay for the welfare state.

Houses are Built when Productive People Trade different Sets of Skill for Money

So let’s play make believe.  Let’s say the liberals get their way.  Like the old hippy and France lover.  Let’s say they take all the wealth from the rich.  They abolish all debt.  Make it a crime to loan money.  What will that do?  Make home owning a thing of the past for one.  Because most Americans could never buy a house without a mortgage.

Wait a minute, the liberals will scream.  That won’t happen.  Because government will just give houses to the people.  Really?  But who will build them?  If people can’t get a mortgage to pay a builder, how will the builder pay the carpenters, electricians, plumbers, roofers, etc., who build these houses?  People don’t work for free.  You see, these skilled trades trade their skills (carpentry, electrical, plumbing, etc.) with builders.  Builders trade their skill (financing and construction management) with skilled trades.  Banks trade their skills (mortgage banking) with builders.  This is how people build houses.  Productive people trade different sets of skill for money.  The end result is that people can get a mortgage and buy a house.  With the money they earn from trading their skills.

So if the liberals get their way and get rid of the things they hate then there is only one way to build houses.  Slavery.  Forcing carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc, to work for the state.  For free.  Like a slave.  So the state can redistribute their wealth (i.e., their skill) to others.  Because people won’t willingly give their skills away for free.  That’s why they join unions.  To get the best deal they can get for their skills.  Which is another thing liberals will have to get rid of to live in their utopia.  Unions.

Liberals are about as Ignorant as they Come and have no Understanding of Basic Economics

Liberals have a smug, all-knowing condescension for people who don’t share their views.  In their minds they are brilliant people.  Because they parrot what other liberals say.  Because in their minds they think that makes them sound brilliant.  But they’re not.  They are about as ignorant as they come.  They have no understanding of basic economics.  And their pretentious airs only camouflage a vacuous philosophical basis.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #19: “Philosophical debates can be effective but character assassination is more expedient, especially when no one agrees with your philosophy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 22nd, 2010

WARNING.  The following contains some explicit language and sexual content and may be inappropriate to some.

“F*ck you.”  “Ass h*le.”  “You’re mother is a whore.”

We all probably heard these before.  Directed at us.  At the end of an argument.  Which means we’ve argued well.  For when the invectives fly, you’ve won the argument.

 A good sales man would never call your mother a whore.  Instead, if you say ‘no’, they come up with other reasons for you to say ‘yes’.  They believe they can get you to see things their way.  And often do.  Not so when it comes to politics.  Especially if you’re arguing with a liberal.

A lot of liberals are liberals for no good reason.  Calling yourself a liberal is just a way to feel good about yourself, to make you feel more enlightened and smarter than non-liberals.  But most are not as smart or enlightened as they would like to think they are. 

I met an old friend for lunch.  She was once a liberal but has since moved to where the bulk of the country is.  Center-right.  She brought an old friend of hers with her.  From her liberal past.  A single mom.  Who successfully juggled career and motherhood.  Did it well, too.  And, of course, my dear old friend introduced me as a conservative.  And she said it with a smirk.

I have long since stopped discussing politics outside my inner circle.  Political and philosophical debate is the raison d’être there.  It’s what we do for intellectual fun.  While drinking some fine single malt.  A time and a place for everything.  And casual conversation is neither the time nor place for politics. 

So I was polite and behaved.  But they kept poking the bear.  Laughing and enjoying themselves.  So, I thought, fine.  Let’s discuss politics.  The current subject was George W. Bush.  Not my favorite president.  Not all that conservative when it comes to the spending.  But I respect him.  I understand his philosophical basis, much of which I agree with.  But there are things I don’t like about him.  So I asked for some specifics.  To make it a fair debate.  Why was he a bad president?  Because he’s an idiot, she said.  Yeah, I asked, but what specifically has he done that you think was idiotic?  Have you heard him speak, she asked.  I mean, she said, he sounds like an idiot.  And so went the conversation.

I pressed for specifics.  Didn’t get any.  Then the name calling started.  I wasn’t being very tolerant of her views.  I replied, but you haven’t told me your views.  All I know is that you think Bush is an idiot.  Apparently, that should have sufficed.  Luckily, we had already consumed a bottle of wine by then so it was easy to change the subject and forget our little dustup.

And that’s a common experience I have with liberals.  They know everything.  But can’t explain anything.  I’m then called intolerant for not seeing things their way while they refuse to consider my arguments for seeing things my way.  In politics, people believe they base their opinions on a sound philosophical basis.  Most times they don’t.  They just heard something funny on Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show.  And they repeat it.  That’s why, when pressed for specifics, they can’t give any.  And then the name calling ensues.

DO YOU KNOW what ‘tea bagging’ is?  If you’re a gay man, you probably do.  At least, one of the meanings.  It’s a sex act in the gay community.  It’s when a dominate man lowers his genitals into a submissive man’s mouth.  It gets its name from the similarity of lowering a tea bag into a cup of hot water.  It’s a popular sex act, for it has migrated into the heterosexual community.  Without the BDSM aspects, though.  But when people call someone a ‘tea bagger’, it generally refers to the homosexual act.  Because of the degrading/humiliation aspects of the BDSM role playing.

David Gergen was on Anderson Cooper’s 360 on CNN.  They were discussing the new grassroots movement known as the Tea Party movement.  It’s called this in honor of those who stood up against the mercantilist policies of the British Empire who said you can drink whatever tea you’d like as long as it is British East India Company tea.  Good tea, yes, but it was British tea.  The Americans were taking a stand on principle.  And tossed the tea overboard. 

Carrying on with the ‘tea’ theme from the colonial period, Tea Party people used tea bags on signs and sent them in to Congress as a symbol of protest.  Some people used the symbol with a sexual undertone.  But most people didn’t.  Most didn’t know of the sexual act.  Well, these people, using tea bags as a symbol of their protest, were dubbed ‘tea baggers’.  And those familiar with the sexual act used it to attack and ridicule those people in the Tea Party movement.  When David Gergen said the Republicans were trying to find their voice, Anderson Cooper made the crude statement, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea bagging.”

So much for your objective journalist.

Sure, the Tea Party people were worthy of such contempt for the things they stand for.  By the way, do you know what they stand for?  It’s easy to find out.  I did.  They adopted a 10 item agenda called Contract from America.  Here’s a bulleted list:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law.
2. Reject emissions trading.
3. Demand a balanced federal budget.
4. Simplify the tax system.
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality.
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending.
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010.
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy.
9. Reduce Earmarks.
10. Reduce Taxes.

Yeah, I know.  This is crazy talk.  Do you realize what would happen if these ‘tea baggers’ got their way?  Everyone would probably live happily ever after.

FOR TOLERANT PEOPLE, liberals can be pretty intolerant of anyone who doesn’t think like them.  And they can get pretty nasty, attacking people instead of the issues.  The Conservatives are yearning to debate the issues.  But they get invective instead.  Why?  Because it’s the last refuge for someone who has already lost the argument.  Name calling.  Because it’s all they have.  They can’t beat you with the facts.  So they pummel you with personal attacks.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,