Honestly, I don't get it. Nearly every liberal I know is working 2-3 jobs. There was one that I knew that really did fit the bill of this bumper sticker but he just got a job and a really well paying one at that.Now I realized that I am not a barometer for the relationship between political affiliation and employment but there are far more unemployed conservatives I know than unemployed liberals. One of them is my uncle who hasn't worked in nearly 20 years. He and his wife (my mom's sister) live with his mom in the house she has owned for over 70 years. Another is a childhood friend I know who has been barely employed for the last 10 years. He also lives with his mom. Both are avid Tea Partiers. In fact, what do people in the Tea Party do for a living that they can afford to go to all these events? Have they become the "professional protester" that they derided just a few short years ago? Yet another hypocrisy.
My neighbor (Obama is the anti-Christ guy) works only in the summer at the amusement park. His wife works full time in an HR department while he...well...loafs and spends his days (like my uncle and childhood chum) listening to Glenn Beck and surfing the right wing blogsphere. Oh, and their only daughter (10 years old) is often left alone while he goes and goofs off at the local hunting supply store with his buddies. Actually, she spends quite a bit of time at our house because, with her mom working and her dad playing with himself whilst looking at right wing blogs, she'd like some attention. Doesn't this sound familiar ? (see: "ghetto" mom on welfare ignores children, collects government check).
So, given reality, the bumper sticker makes no sense. The government that my uncle, friend, and neighbor routinely spit on supplies them with basic benefits so they can enjoy the lives that they lead. The liberals that they laugh about through bumper stickers like this one don't really exist anymore--especially since President Clinton reformed welfare.
The only "silly" people I see are very much to the right of the aisle. And that makes this bumper sticker pretty hilarious indeed.
15 comments:
In fact, what do people in the Tea Party do for a living that they can afford to go to all these events?
HAHAHHAhahahahahaha
You know how many times that has been said about lefties out protesting the cause du jour (environment, anti-globalism, animal rights, etc.)?
How DO all those people get by? Particularly since they must be doing it without welfare.
...what do people in the Tea Party do for a living that they can afford to go to all these events? Have they become the "professional protester" that they derided just a few short years ago? Yet another hypocrisy.
Bravo Mark, bravo!
Somehow you were able to answer a question without backing it with a single fact.
Let me try...
Let's see, first I need a question that seem legitimate and serious. Then I need a second question that turns it so that a particular answer seems very bad indeed. Then finish it by answering as though it is so sadly bad.
In fact, I wonder what Mark does to occupy his free time? Does he surf gay porn sites? His poor wife.
Wow! How easy to impugn others without actually making a negative statement.
There is no difference whatsoever between the wild eyed idealism of the 60s hippies and the wild eyed idealism of the Tea party.
It's funny how the wild eyed idealists of the 60s hippies turned into the fat-cat ripoff artists of the 00s, ain't it?
There are surveys out there of who the average tea partier is. I'm suprised you internet trolls couldn't dredg up one...there are several out there after all. Hell I could go to one because I have over a month of vacation time. It's not like they are flying into London for a week to protest the G20 summit...from what I have observed, the average tea party rally lasts for about 1 day and usually take place on weekends.
Juris-yeah, I wouldn't be so sure about the welfare thing. Of course, that all depends on how you define welfare.
Guard Duck-first of all, what's wrong with gay porn? It seems to me that I struck a nerve on this one. I won't hold my breath for any serious critical comparison between the idealism of the left in the 60s and the idealism of the right today.
Last-I think you may need to dig a little deeper on the Tea Party activists. It's a full time job for many. In other words, they are the professional protester that has been so derided in the past.
I think you may need to dig a little deeper on the Tea Party activists.
There's a whole lot of people and groups that you need to dig deeper on, but I'm not holding my breath. Tell any lie, commit any crime, you'll forgive it all, so long as they support the party of
"women need protection from sexual harassment in the workplace" but Bill Clinton is not a sexual predator,
"we need to make the fat cats pay their fair share", but George Soros and John Kerry aren't fat cats,
"we're for the little people" but it's okay if Nancy Pelosi uses the US Air Force as a private charter service for herself, her friends and her family,
"we need more regulation" as all your supporters clamor for waivers from the regulations you pass,
"we're against racism" as you quietly ignore your party members who openly base approval or disapproval on race...
"we're trying to save the planet", but we don't want to talk about Al Gore's zinc mine, or his fleet of SUVs, or his Gulfstream...
So what's your point?
Show me a child who has been helped by digging into the lives of tea party activists...
I was simply pointing out that the moniker of "professional protester" now falls squarely on many in the Tea Party. You folks used to gripe about them when they were on the left but now it's "honest and hard working Americans" who are Tea Party protesters. That may be as many have made it their full time job!
I have no problem with people of any political ideology who want to protest. It's their right and if they want to devote their life to it, great! I don't agree with all of what they may say but I don't chide them for protesting. You folks chided when you didn't like what they were saying and now you are cheerleaders. Quite amusing...
That may be as many have made it their full time job!
Really, many? Could you start by even naming one or two?
Ana Puig and Pam Stout.
Anna
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/01/05/commentary/op-eds/doc4b42f69eb7500044097348.txt
"While millions of Americans fight to defend our rights to keep the best health-care system in the world untouched, President Obama and his communist-minority cabinet are using the momentum to make important progresses on another front: their Marxist foreign-policy agenda."
Pam
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?_r=1&hp
"Worried about hyperinflation, social unrest or even martial law, she and her Tea Party members joined a coalition, Friends for Liberty, that includes representatives from Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project, the John Birch Society, and Oath Keepers, a new player in a resurgent militia movement."
This Ana Puig, right?
Ana Puig is a concerned naturalized American citizen who has spoken at rallies, written on political subjects, and appeared on major networks and their affiliates. She is a spokesperson for Conservatism from the viewpoint of a successful legal immigrant.
Very scary!!! Isn't it just a little ironic that you should pick out a naturalized citizen as the bogeyman of what you think is the modern day Know-Nothings?
As for Pam Stout, try this or this? Or how about the clip of her appearance on Letterman? Of course she is from Idaho - and we all know what that means, don't we?
Nor do either of them appear to be full time 'activists' such as some, ahem, 'community organizers'-turned-politicians.
You're a sad, if somewhat funny, sort of fellow, you know that M?
Dammit, my comment disappeared and I am too lazy to reconstruct it.
Short summary - not impressed. Nor is it at all clear they are full time activists. From what I see (looking beyond your two links) this isn't their primary gig.
Unlike some 'community organizers' turned politician.
Something is going on with Google, juris. I don't know what is up at all.
I had the same problem at another blog. Apparently Google has decided that if you quote more than a couple words from an article, they will toss your comment into the bit bucket; along with the entire concept of fair use.
I don't know where their line is, but it's clearly less than a single paragraph; which is far too little if it's a summary of a very long article.
Post a Comment