Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for October 15, 2010

“She turned me into a newt… I got better.”

Sorry, had to say it.

Burn her anyway.

…because of Jim Jones we have the saying,’They drank the cool-aid’…now,I say,’They’re drinking the tea.’

The Glenn Beck character is a nice touch.

Okay I recognize Hannity (a Great American) and is the “Crying Guy” suppose to be Glen Beck? Have to toss in O’Donnell before shes ‘yesterdays NEWS’. ……and I forget the name of the guy who dressed as Hitler. WAIT!…. WHERES RUSH?????

A very funny, well-done cartoon, especially from a freedom-hating pinko.

(Anthony: If you don’t realize that the T-B word is offensive, you should look it up. If you already know, that is why you deserve to be flagged.)

“(Anthony: If you don’t realize that the T-B word is offensive, you should look it up. If you already know, that is why you deserve to be flagged.)”

They wear teabags on their heads. They send teabags through the mail as a statement. The term “teabagger” fits them far more aptly than it does those who engage in that other practice, in which no actual teabags are used. Sure, the earlier figurative usage predates this literal one, but words can have multiple meanings and if they don’t like the association they should have picked their symbol more wisely.

Advertising history is full of brand names that have turned out to be embarrassing for those attempting to market them, and while it’s less than glorious to have to do a name change, once people find a reason to snigger at you it’s pretty much impossible to get them to stop. You can decide for yourself what name YOU want to use, but you can’t control what name OTHERS use for you…

pschearer, give me a break.

Video from a Hawaii conference of tea baggers showed them selling silver-plated tea-bag earrings and broaches to each other.

Add that to what Fritzoid graciously supplied, and I anxiously await your apology.

By the way…could you elucidate your “freedom-hating” comment”? Since as stated, it has no veracity, what part of the cartoon do you find untruthful???

Does “freedom-hating” mean that we shouldn’t be concerned about foreign or multi-national corporations having more influence over our elections than poor single American voters?

Or did you mean that tea-baggers who hypocritically denigrate the very social programs from which they benefit are “freedom-hating”?

Or did you mean that right-wing mouthpieces like Faux News who get their funding from foreign sources are “freedom hating”?

Which is it?

I look forward to your response. Or if this turns out to be yet another of your hit-and-attacks, I accept yet another unchallenged and uncontested refutation of your drivel.

The fact that, when Fox News (or whoever) first dreamed up the idea of using a teabag as their emblem, nobody in the room raised their hand and said “Uh, we might wanna rethink this one…” is an indication of just how far out-of-the-loop their “brain trust” actually is. Any Madison Ave pitchman who sold something like this to a client without Googling the possible associations for teabags would have been fired so fast he wouldn’t know what hit him.

But since I’m a big-hearted kinda guy, I’ll offer them an alternative name. Since they’re so strongly committed to combatting the Democrat agenda, maybe they can call themselves the Donkey-Punch Party?

Leave pschearer alone. You shouldn’t pick on the mentally handicapped.

Teabagger has become a completely acceptable term for these imbeciles. And, no, it’s not like the blacks calling themselves “N-words”. The blacks at least have a clue about what they’re doing.

Hey gang! Did you know this?

The Boston Tea Party was organized by tea smugglers! It’s a fact that John Hancock became one of the richest colonists by smuggling tea. Then, he organized and financed a tea party to dump legal ( and much cheaper ! ) english tea into the harbor so that he could charge more for his tea. And here we are, believing these guys were patriots that wanted to save us all from taxation without blablabla!! Today’s tea party movement is aptly named.—-It’s supported and organized by selfish rich pigs that are willing to lie to us suckers in order to protect their wealth—without caring a bit about us.

For the record: I’m not against tea smuggling. But let’s call a spade a spade. The Revolution was not the noble endeavor we’ve been taught in school. It was an enormous “price fixing scheme” for which many men died in a war. Who died? I’ll tell you who did NOT die—-John Hancock and his rich friends

@seablood: So, given what we know about the origins of the Tea Party, it’s actually kind of (ironically) appropriate?

So all you Libs who are bad-mouthing so-called “rich people”:

Why do you loones buy lottery tickets?

Answer: so you can get rich.

For the record: I’ve never purchased a lottery ticket in my life. And I never will. States should not be in the gambling business. It’s just another way to tax dumb people. Translation: it just teaches poor, dumb, budding-libs to take it up the tailpipe with another form of taxes.

Oh, and, good job jimjammer!

There’s a brilliant article about Glenn Beck and the Tea Party in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/18/101018fafactwilentz

Full disclosure: Copied and pasted below is text from an email I received last summer:

A Message to the Tea Party

After eight years of Bush and Cheney now you get mad!

You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed for political reasons.

You didn’t get mad when the “Patriot Act” got passed and government was given unprecedented spying powers on you and all the rest of us.

You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn’t get mad when we spent over $600 billion (and counting) on that illegal war.

You didn’t get mad when over $10 billion just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.

You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions injured soldiers were enduring at Walter Reed Hospital.

You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn’t get mad when we gave $900 billion in tax breaks to the already rich.

You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark under Bush.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, they’re all okay with you, but helping other Americans… oh hell no!

Actually, many did get mad when the deficit hit such a large number. They got madder when the succeeding administration which promised during its campaign to close the Guantanamo detention center wiithin a year is nowhere close to closing the site.

They got madder when the succeeding administration announced plans to bring the most dangerous of the detainees to New York City for trial.

They got madder when that trillion dollar deficit was dwarfed by the additional spending and deficits coming about in the first year of the administration succeeding the Bush administration.

They got madder when “healthcare reform” cost many people either benefits they already had via their own healthcare plans or via the government’s already in place bureaucracy known as Medicaid/Medicare.

They got madder when that bastion of Liberty which “appointed” the previous President decided it wasn’t necessary for his successor to provide solid proof of his birthplace that’s acceptable to the people asking for it instead of to his own lapdogs.

I agree with all of the things in the message to the Tea Party folks. I also agree with the things that made the Tea Party folks mad.

Oh, and amazingly the Tea Party folks also didn’t get mad when Bush allowed Ted Kennedy to write the “No Child Left Behind” education act, which the Democrats tore into as if it were written by Satan himself.

papa surfstuff:

Just so ya know—- Obama is not a black man. He’s half black and half white.

And I happen to dislike both halves.

Reason? Dude has half a brain!

You want a black man for Prez? Gimme Alan Keyes. Now HE’S gotta full brain!

http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger

GreggW:

The voters in Minnesota are as stupid as the voters in California, New York, and every other state run into the ground by Liberals/Progressives. Aren’t they the same voters that allowed Al Franken to steal the election with all those ballots, already marked for Franken found in peoples car trunks and garages? Funny how Lib ideas are so great, that they have to go to graveyards and prisons to find people that will vote for them. —————————————————————————-

That has nothing to do with anything you said, but I thought it was cool.

Papa Smurf:

You, sir, have given me the lowest form of insult imaginable by calling me none other than a “liberal”. I will not be able to sleep tonight! I may need counseling!

In other news: that’s one of the many, many, problems with Libs. They think that ALL conservative folks hate blacks. Get over it my little chum! Blacks are humans just like the next guy. It’s “libs” that I can not stand — regardless of color. The so-called “progressive” mind-set is what is ruining this great country. That’s why the sleeping giant has awakened. Just turn the news on the morning of Nov 3rd. The “news” people at PMSNBC will be crying their eyes out! Deal with it Libs! You’re goin’ down! BWAHHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pschearer, when people hang tea-bags from the brims of their hats, then they are asking us to call them tea-baggers. If you find that word offensive, then you can overlook those comments, or you can get over it and realize that many words (like “pink”, for instance) have more than one meaning. As for hating freedom, I suggest that you look first in the mirror.

Fritzoid & Anthony, I applaud your sensible remarks. (By the way, the word “jazz” was first used as derogatory sexual term for this new “colored” music.) By the way, considering that the Tea party has merged with the Republican Party, I have simply called the major party other than the Democrats, the Teapublican Party.

JimJam, thanks for the citation to Real Clear Politics. I suggest that you also look at FiveThirtyEight.com and that you look at local races. This is not a national election. It is a thousand local elections. For whom will you vote in your state & district, and why?

Mung, I have been saying that for over a year. I am glad that I am not alone. History will record this Year of the Tea Party as part of the White backlash at having an African-American president. Are the Teapublicans solely racially based? No. Is a great part of this anger racism under another name? Yes.

Nola, I replied to your comment at Slowpoke. The Teapublicans are not angry about the continued imprisoned at Guantanamo. The Teapublicans are angry simply to be angry. It is the tantrum of a two-year-old, encouraged by the right-leaning mainstream media. Their platform is nonsensical: Cut government spending, but maintain the current military & veterans budgets, do not hurt Medicare or Social Security. That is ninety percent of the budget. Cut taxes, but simultaneously decrease the debt, while leaving 90% of the budget alone. It is the stance of a child.

Hugh, your remarks are so moronic, insubstantial, and semi-literate that I see no point in reading them. It is apparent that you hold no interest in reasoned discussion. One question, though: Presuming that Teapublicans gain control of the House and divide the Senate 50-50, what will they accomplish between January 3rd 2011 & January 3rd 2013?

BrianIsACrook2:

Said this:

One question, though: Presuming that Teapublicans gain control of the House and divide the Senate 50-50, what will they accomplish between January 3rd 2011 & January 3rd 2013? —————————————————————————-

Dude! Just stopping the madness of our….emmmmm…. “president”…. is enough for me! Get a clue dude!

And thanks for the advice on Realclearpolitics.com

I guess they’re wasting their time. I’ll call ‘em up and tell ‘em they should shut down since their work is worthless. However, I suggest you invest in a big pile of kleenex, cuz you’ll need ‘em on Nov 3rd! Ha!

Teapublicans. Clever. Especially for a 4th grader.

Sad really.

Okay, Hugh, WHAT, preCISEly, will a Teapublican House and a split Senate ACCOMPLISH?

Brian “I am not a” Crook2:

Ok smart guy, how ‘bout this for starters:

1) Repealing Obamacare. 2) Keeping the Bush tax cuts in place 3) Keeping DOMA in place 4) Blocking more liberal judges from infesting the Supreme Court

Those are just off the top of my very brilliant head.

Thanks, Hugh:

1) The Senate will not vote to repeal health-insurance reform. If it did, President Obama will veto such a repeal.

2) The Senate & House will vote on the Bush-Dick giveaway to the rich before the new Congress is in place. In addition, if the Senate DOES NOT ACT, because the current Republicans will not co-operate, then ALL the giveaways go away. If the new Congress tries to restore Bush-Dick’s giveaway for the rich, then Obama will veto it.

3) No one is trying to repeal that pathetically frightened (Defense of Manhood) act. The Supreme Court will address same-sex marriage in a year or two, and will probably find nothing constitutional against it, because there is nothing constitutional against it.

4) As only the Senate ratifies justices, then a split Senate will not stop Obama’s choices.

One could ask why you are against ensuring that all Americans have health-care, why you are in favor of hurting the federal deficit simply to maintain extremely low tax rates for millionaires, & why you want to ban same-sex marriage, but I doubt that I would get any coherent answers. You live in a fool’s paradise. Who is your savior, for whom will you vote on November 2nd?

Mr Crook, one might also ask why, since the healthcare reform bill will still leave some 21 million Americans without healthcare insurance, you are against ensuring that all Americans have health-care. If you vote Democrat, actually if you vote incumbent in nearly every election, whether Democrat OR Republican, you reside in the same neighborhood you accuse Hugh of living in.

Thanks, Nola, I am glad to read that you, too, think that we should ensure that all Americans have health-care. Considering that 55 million of our fellow citizens currently lack health-care, we can agree that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act takes a strong step in the right direction. You & I can vote for representatives who believe in universal health-care. You & I can speak & write in support of morality of ensuring affordable health-care for all.

I am also glad that you agree with my replies to Hugh. A Teapublican House and a split Senate (one of the more likely results of this election) won’t do any of the things Hugh wants.

Considering your anti-incumbent bent and your residency in New Orleans, may I presume that you will vote for Charlie Melancon against that whore-hungry family values man, David Vitter?

As only the Senate ratifies justices, then a split Senate will not stop Obama’s choices.

The Senate needs a supermajority to do anything in the face of a filibuster. This is enough to hold up appointments.

The Rs are already getting back at the Ds for getting back at the Rs for getting the Ds in the 1990s this way.

Yes, Toby, and the Republicans have already slowed down many of President Obama’s judicial appointments, but my remark above refers only to Supreme Court appointments. Those receive enough media attention that even a split Senate won’t stop them.

Of course, his next appointment, to replace Justice Ginsburg, won’t much change the political leanings on the Court. We must wait for late in Obama’s second term–if then–to see whether Justices Scalia or Kennedy retire.

It’s time to change these lifetime appointments to twenty-year terms. Amid the physical ease of the work, the excellent health-care, and increased human longevity, justices are keeping much longer terms than ever before: twenty-year terms with the option that you can be renominated for another.

And, considering that Virginia Thomas brought her back into the news, wouldn’t it be great if Obama replaced Ginsburg with Anita Hill?

Mr Crook, I would most certainly not vote for David Vitter were I voting in my original home, but then again, as I know that Charlie Melancon is a long-time incumbent in Louisiana politics, I’d probably not vote for him either. I suppose that if no one else were on the ballot, I’d have to leave that one blank.

So, Nola, for whom will you vote & why?

Mr. Crook, check my profile for my email addy and send me a note and I’ll give you that. Don’t want to bore the folks on here with a long diatribe about something which doesn’t concern or interest them. Since you’ve asked, I’d be happy to answer your question. I promise not to send your email address to the NRA or Glenn Beck :-)

This is a first-time post after a year or so of looking-in.

There’s certainly a substantial representation of the usual positions.

Over the past thirty years, we’ve elevated rapacious individualism–the non-virtue of selfishness–to a state of acceptability-by-overexposure, kind of like gratuitously lewd dialog in prime-time sitcoms. Alack and alas—and probably a bushel and a peck as well, it serves the common good not a dime’s worth, and seems to serve only a sort of auto-erotic purpose recently denounced by a rising belief-based candidate.

For an actual improvement of conditions, there may be some merit to moving to the center, reducing one’s name-calling-to-plain-talk ratio, and finding one’s indoor voice. Dated, but still better than actually working at being ignored.

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed most of the snappy repartee. Thanks for all the ginger.

Serio