Teabaggers and the Democrat Party
I'm not a big fan of his, but Bill Maher makes a good point here. I only know that because I read the transcript. I stopped watching him years ago because I don't really like that sort of confrontational infotainment any more than Robert Stein does.
It's not necessary and it distracts from the messaging if the intent is to influence the debate beyond reaching, and preaching to, a target audience. The greater truth, which is the Founding Fathers were Liberals and would not have supported the present day Tea Party, is going to be lost on the audience that needs to internalize it the most, because Maher insists on persisting with the teabagger meme.
Yes, they named themselves, but they've been embarassed enough by it. I don't see a whole lot of difference between that and the GOPers insistence on using Democrat Party. I know I'm being too preachy but just saying, if we become like them, don't the terrorists win -- or something?
It's not necessary and it distracts from the messaging if the intent is to influence the debate beyond reaching, and preaching to, a target audience. The greater truth, which is the Founding Fathers were Liberals and would not have supported the present day Tea Party, is going to be lost on the audience that needs to internalize it the most, because Maher insists on persisting with the teabagger meme.
Yes, they named themselves, but they've been embarassed enough by it. I don't see a whole lot of difference between that and the GOPers insistence on using Democrat Party. I know I'm being too preachy but just saying, if we become like them, don't the terrorists win -- or something?
posted by Libby Spencer at 7:01 PM
7 Comments:
It is amusing how they have been embarrassed by the name they first used for themselves (with some Tea Party members still sticking with the name. It is an example of their limited thought processes.
To myself and most liberals, it doesn't really matter if Teabagger was used both for the political movement and the homosexual act. It is simple to understand that there are two totally different meanings and to distinguish between the two. We can understand that Teabaggers engaged in irrational political protest have nothing to do with the other meaning. (And when there is overlap, most are staying in the closet or airport mens' rooms.) While simple for liberals, this represents mental gymnastics which most in the Tea Party movement find too difficult to handle.
Ron. Thanks for stopping by. Don't get me wrong. I understand that it's mostly just liberal shorthand and not necessarily meant to be mean, but I think it distracts from the message. It feeds the phony equivalence narrative and gives the apologists a dodge to focus on perceived insults and imagined incivility instead of the substance of the remarks.
Adding, I know I'm being way too scoldy schoolmarm about it. Just posting idle thoughts.
I record that show -- hate to watch it before bedtime 'cause it keeps me up, but once again, Maher and company managed to tick me off the same way he often does with his ignorant pronouncements about health and vast medical conspiracies.
I had to choke on the stock shibboleths and standard tropes about guns: "Glocks are only designed to hunt people" as though that's why the cops carry them and not to protect themselves and the public.
Shooting ourselves in the foot, is really the metaphor here since the Democrats have done such a good job of displaying themselves as the Luddite party that wants to ban everything scary.
They're not of course. The local Repubs just tried to ban Catcher in the Rye here once again last week and are trying a state resolution condemning phrases like "happy holidays."
But we really do make it easy by raving on about Glocks and "clips" and hyperbolic hypotheticals instead of about keeping any weapon from nutjobs - as the law demands.
I basically support gun owners rights and I'm not sure what a Glock is but while I don't buy into the panic, thinking they could make some restrictions on semi-auto and auto weapons without infringing on basic ownership rights. Frankly, I've never understood the purpose of these guns for private use, outside of target practice I guess.
I have no affection for 9mm pistols in particular - Glock is just another brand out of many, but the public is now making it seem like something special, which it isn't. Civil War and earlier is more my style.
I have a 9mm that I acquired from my son in law who we both agreed didn't want it in his house now that he has kids. I've converted it to a .22 with target sights, but even still I rarely have a use for it.
If I go out to the Bahamas again this summer, I may bring it along, just in case. Otherwise it stays locked up.
People love to have a fragment to gobble about and the papers have given them one: Glockglockglockglock - sounds like a turkey, doesn't it?
I don't see much difference between the rush to ban guns and the over-reaction to 9/11 that led to the Patriot Act, NSLs and the like.
If I thought banning guns would make a difference I'd be for it, but if people stopped to think it through they might realize crazy people will find other ways to kill. If they can't get guns, they'll use bombs or something that causes even greater mayhem. Which is not to say I don't think they could tighten the screening process some. But even that is a slippery slope. I recall a case in Noho where an old guy who hunted all his life and obviously presented no danger to the public had his permit pulled for some disorderly conduct conviction when he was 18 years old after they installed new regs in Mass.
Apathy followed by panic is the American way, I guess. We laughed at terrorism before 2001.
I'm hoping that we'll finally get around to requiring school health services to report obvious maniacs like this guy and the Virginia Tech guy. Would have saved more lives than an impossible to enforce magazine ban.
Post a Comment
<< Home