The teabagger below uses the word "teabagger" 4 times to complain about teabaggers being called teabaggers... and, of course, he whines about other stuff, too.

I am not sure if Mr. Richard is advocating stagnation or out-right regression.

but agree wholeheartedly that what we have today doesn't work.

But, it's a good thing you came to good ol' Dale's defense and explained his ramblings for us. We would have never been able to decifer it... being liberal elites and all.

Dale explained it all.

Abbot and Costello, Laural and Hardy, Dale and Bogus Bill. You all work well together.

Liberal elites don't try to decipher, they make fun of ideas they don't agree with. Were you making fun of me?

Liberal elites don't try to decipher, they make fun of ideas they don't agree with.

Why do you, and many others, find it necessary to categorize folks as "liberal elites", conservatives, or otherwise?

Yet, a movement is developing. Is developing, not developed. Cut government's meddling, size, etc. might be the core values but it is still developing and when they find a middle ground will probably influence elections.

If you track the discussion you will see Stash used the term first in referring to himself. I grabbed it and made fun of it but an element of truth crept in there. My point, such as it was:

I could respond and list several ongoing threads right now where there is no attempt to understanding the other person's thought processes. We just label, laugh at them and go on. In this case the teabaggers are just a bunch of nuts (publish a photo of the most foolish of the bunch to illustrate your point)and yuck it up all the while feeling superior. It is done all the time.

Why do you, and many others, find it necessary to categorize folks as "liberal elites", conservatives, or otherwise?

where there is no attempt to understanding the other person's thought processes. We just label, laugh at them and go on. In this case the teabaggers are just a bunch of nuts (publish a photo of the most foolish of the bunch to illustrate your point)and yuck it up all the while feeling superior.

or they're actually pissed about something else that they don't want to put on a protest sign.

Either way, they're not worth listening to.

Why do you, and many others, find it necessary to categorize folks as "liberal elites", conservatives, or otherwise?

To my way of thinking, the need to tuck folks and their ideas into neat little categories, such as liberal/conservative, is a sign of laziness, or of a small mind incapable of entertaining the almost infinite shades of gray which compose the spectrum of people and their ideas.

How, for example, would you categorize a person who is in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution; who supports capital punishment for the sociopaths who litter and who leave their shopping carts in a parking space rather than exerting the minimal effort of pushing it back to the station; who supports the notion of a "union" into which our forebears entered us into for the purpose of pooling our risks relative to personal and national defense and promoting the general welfare; who supports the ideal of a union in which we compassionately support the ideal of helping the less fortunate, whether here or abroad, by taxing ourselves; who supports the ideal of a balanced federal budget; and who supports federal government deficit spending in times of extraordinary economic events, such as we are now experiencing?

I try to deal with the idea presented, rather than tucking the idea into a tidy little category which enables me to immediately dismiss or approve of the idea presented based upon which category in which I might perceive the idea or its presenter might reside.

Why limit the bounds of our discussions by using labels which confine the discussion to our individual understandings of the labels as we perceive them to represent?

I don't care who does the categorizing. Let's deal with the idea, rather than dismissing or approving the person espousing the idea with a jerk of the knee.

Either way, they're not worth listening to.

How incongruous, a bull in a china shop; let's ignore it.

How incongruous, a bull in a china shop; let's ignore it.

What does one ordinarily do with rogue animals?

I think your over estimate the so called Tea Party "movement". I think it's the cranky ten percent fringe which has always been with us.

Maybe he was talking about Batista the professional wrestler. I understand many of his fans are Wal-Mart shoppers.

A more apt comparison would be the so called militias and their grievances with Clinton.

Not that I'm a Tea Party fan but I think you may be discounting the discontent that is growing in this country. Those of us who still live here are in for a bit of social and economic readjustment in case you hadn't noticed.

Ah, yes, the cigar savoring, moderate Republican president who oversaw the travesty of Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Polling conducted in July, 2008 by members of the UT - Austin Government Department revealed a roughly evenly divided electorate in terms of party identification. The numbers of self-identified registered voters who identified as either Republican or Democratic were nearly even, though somewhat more independents said they leaned Republican (10%) than said they leaned Democrat (7%). The overall number of independents was 24%, though 5% responded "other" -- returning us to the neighborhood of independent number in the historical data from recent years.

What does one ordinarily do with rogue animals?

I can proudly say that I did not there a wrestler named Batista.

Here in Xalapa there are shops which nothing but wrestling masks.

Please correct my methodology...
"Our governments are far less corrupt now then they have ever been."

To correct your methodology, I'd have to start with the above premise, in general. You seem to be imagining a Bird of Paradise. I see a Shit a Quart.

Within the time frame of Reagan forward has occurred the largest transfer of wealth in U.S. history. I think it would be accurate to say it didn't trickle down. Concurring with that, our government, at the behest of corporate bosses, has abetted the transfer of millions of jobs to other countries. In collusion, banks have plundered our pensions and other assets. All while the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been corrupted.

I have to agree with Turnow on the historical record. Read up about the Gilded Age and the reasons why laws were created to break up monopolies, to eliminate child labor, and the reason for the birth of the US union movement. Let's not forget the taking of Indian lands even after treaties were signed giving them land in perpetuity which was then taken away once that land became valuable. These are just a few of many examples where government was corrupt and in bed with business and investors prior to the current era.

I say good on them. Get the marshmallows.

[quote]
Dee Brown's book Hear the Lonesome Whistle Blow

Does my assertion about the present have have less legitimacy because I have not acknowledged the lineage of greed and corruption throughout our history?

I think how it works is that if a past administration or, in this case, the past itself has had a worse bunch of villains then we are sort of okay.

That is really grasping for something to feel good about.

I disagreed, noting that the USA is less politically corrupt than it has ever been,

Yes, yes I'm aware of said past but I don't fathom what you are trying to tell me. Is it that that kind of past is a thing of the past? Is it that we studied that past and now have a rosy present because it isn't being repeated? Is it that we still have corruption but it's tolerable now? Did the leopard change its spots? Does my assertion about the present have have less legitimacy because I have not acknowledged the lineage of greed and corruption throughout our history?

I just don't think this period in history is the worst.

A major U.S. city long known as a hotbed of pay-to-play politics infested with clout and patronage has seen nearly 150 employees, politicians and contractors get convicted of corruption in the last five decades.

Chicago has long been distinguished for its pandemic of public corruption, but actual cumulative figures have never been offered like this. The astounding information is featured in a lengthy report published by one of Illinois’s biggest public universities.

Cook County, the nation’s second largest, has been a “dark pool of political corruption” for more than a century, according to the informative study conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago, the city’s largest public college. The report offers a detailed history of corruption in the Windy City beginning in 1869 when county commissioners were imprisoned for rigging a contract to paint City Hall.

It’s downhill from there, with a plethora of political scandals that include 31 Chicago alderman convicted of crimes in the last 36 years and more than 140 convicted since 1970. The scams involve bribes, payoffs, padded contracts, ghost employees and whole sale subversion of the judicial system, according to the report.

Elected officials at the highest levels of city, county and state government—including prominent judges—were the perpetrators and they worked in various government locales, including the assessor’s office, the county sheriff, treasurer and the President’s Office of Employment and Training. The last to fall was renowned political bully Isaac Carothers, who just a few weeks ago pleaded guilty to federal bribery and tax charges.

In the last few years alone several dozen officials have been convicted and more than 30 indicted for taking bribes, shaking down companies for political contributions and rigging hiring. Among the convictions were fraud, violating court orders against using politics as a basis for hiring city workers and the disappearance of 840 truckloads of asphalt earmarked for city jobs.

A few months ago the city’s largest newspaper revealed that Chicago aldermen keep a secret, taxpayer-funded pot of cash (about $1.3 million) to pay family members, campaign workers and political allies for a variety of questionable jobs. The covert account has been utilized for decades by Chicago lawmakers but has escaped public scrutiny because it’s kept under wraps.

Judicial Watch has extensively investigated Chicago corruption, most recently the conflicted ties of top White House officials to the city, including Barack and Michelle Obama as well as top administration officials like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual and Senior Advisor David Axelrod. In November Judicial Watch sued Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's office to obtain records related to the president’s failed bid to bring the Olympics to the city.

You made the assertion.
Can you back it up with proof?
Or is it only your personal opinion/perception?

Who else's opinion would I be posting? I think I've made it quite clear in my posts that it is my "perception".

And I'd like to see that "note" backed up by statistical facts.

I guess you've got to make it clear that your perception is a product of your observations, experience and thought as opposed to a product of listening to talk radio.

Just for the record I don't listen to talk radio, watch TV news, nor spend much time at what I consider to be dogmatic web sites and blogs.

You sure about that?
Let's look at just one little pea in the political pod:

You asserted that the Tea Party will ascend to become a political force because of how politically corrupt the USA has become. I disagreed, noting that the USA is less politically corrupt than it has ever been, and asserted that the cranky 10% has always been with us.

That's all, though I think you moved the target a bit.

As you pointed out a few posts back, we just disagree.
It's OK.

Now we can leave in disagreement.