One thing i see all the time on right wing sites is this obsession with "alpha males" and "beta males." All teabaggers see themselves as powerful alpha monkeys and all liberals and "metrosexuals" as their natural enemies (because they make friends with women and gays, i suppose -- don't trade with the enemy!) But rather than brag about their accomplishments, or anything they've done to prove their overwhelming manliness, they just hurl insults on the same level as your typical 5th-grade bully. When Ray Harryhausen died last week, they couldn't even hold a discussion on his FX work without someone chiming in "I liked Clash of the Titans, except that Harry Hamlin always struck me as a pussy. He wouldn't even know what to do with (actress who played Andromeda.)" It's just a reflex to them.
First off, i was under the impression that true alpha males were secure enough in their positions that they don't engage in such blather. Do Bill Clinton and Brad Pitt and Richard Branson go around giggling and snarking at people? Probably not. The true alpha shows magnaminity, class, tribal leadership. He is secure in his position.
...and that's if you're going by this biological model. And that's the most ludicrous thing -- the same tards who are obsessed with alpha status are the same idiots who quote scripture and profess a belief in Christ. They don't believe in evolution, but they apparently believe in applying primate group psychology to the human species? While declaring the next minute that they are souls totally separate from the monkey? And they glory in bullying and "might makes right" while simultaneously worshiping the Passive Prince of Peace?
These things do not compute.
Or, gosh, maybe they're just apes who use religion as another tool to claim their status, and naturally accept what they see as the predominant belief of their herd. Insider status good, outsider bad.
No wonder they have trouble with women like Hillary. No wonder they have trouble with alpha-nerds like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, or celebrities like Johnny Depp and Tobey Maguire, whom they call pussies -- they are in alpha positions, far more powerful than they are, but don't give off the domineering macho vibe that they respond to.
UGGA GEORGE BUSH GOOD. ME FOLLOW BUSH. HIM CHIEF.
Jesus Christ? What a beta. He was totally submissive.
Twitter.
Behance gallery.
LinkedIn.
Facebook.
CGTalk.
Pinterest.
14 comments:
You do know not all members of the right are misogynistic anti-nerds, right? And I'd hardly put Hillary Clinton as an example of whom women should seek inspiration from anymore than Sarah Palin.
Speaking of the Tea Party, what is your opinion regarding the whole thing with the IRS?
Yes. But the ones who run the famous blogs, and appear on the radio, and sit in the House.... mostly are.
I think it's crap. Look, most right-wingers tend to believe in profiling -- i.e., if a cop sees a young black dude wearing a rag and driving a clunker with smoke billowing out the windows, then the cop is right to give that person more scrutiny than, say, an old lady driving a Lexus. In the spirit of that, why would the IRS NOT give scrutiny to groups whose main reason for being is to oppose taxation? They're the young gangsta guy in the rusty Pontiac in this case.
Plus, keep in mind, this supposedly began in 2010, when the Tea Party was a new sort of political fad -- just like the ULC in the '70s, people were probably starting a lot of these groups for other reasons than the ones stated. And remember, organizations dedicated mainly to politics are NOT tax exempt, social welfare organizations are....
...so you have this faddish new political identity, whose raison d'etre is to oppose Federal taxation, and many of them are purporting to be "social welfare" groups. Why would the IRS not give them some extra paperwork? The view was, gosh, look at all these new groups springing up like weeds, let's examine them more than, say, the church groups that have been around forever. We're the cop, and these guys are the shady loners who just moved into town and started buying lots of fertilizer and blasting caps.
That's what i think happened. Not this scenario where Obama called his evil henchmen and said "grrr, go after anyone who doesn't like me! I am King of America!" That's what Republicans are trying to get people to believe, because Republicans think we're idiots.
So you believe the IRS was justified, or at least within bounds to investigate the Tea Party?
The issue is here is not that the IRS was investigating the Tea Party over whether they should be considered tax exempt, but that they were specifically targeting conservative groups prior to the election. And to be fair, I don't doubt some on the right had the IRS was doing the exact same thing to liberal groups during the Bush years.
Regarding whether Obama is connected to this, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware this was going on. However, if its true that a government agency was acting without presidential authority to target groups based on their political leanings, be they liberal or conservative, then we have on our hands here is a government that has gotten so big that not even the President can control. THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed.
I'm assuming though that you do not find this to be an issue.
Not really. The Republican Party has shown that it has no interest in actually governing; when in power, they shovel loot to their cronies and shift the tax burden from the investment class to the working class as the country rots. When out of power, their only goal is to destroy those in power so they can have another go at the trough.
Hearing the Republicans howl and gnash their teeth over every perceived malfeasance, their inane insistence that every bad deed "goes right to the top to Obama," their endless screeching about "Umbrellagate" and other trifles -- well, it's sickening. It's like watching a filthy serial rapist scream and demand the police arrest a guy who tried to cop a feel at Hooters.
And as usual, i feel sorry for the working-class schmucks who listen to their vile mouthpieces. As we speak, Mark Levin and Michael Savage are bellowing that this is the proof we need that we ought to razt the IRS to the ground and institute a flat tax. And Poor Bubba who makes $20,000/ year is nodding his head in agreement. Hell, yeah, Mark! My taxes should increase from 3% to 12%, so that Mitt Romney can pay less on his $250 million stock portfolio!
A sickening charade.
The only good thing about the Republican Party is that its eating itself. I look forward to the hilarity in 2016 when the party Bosses nominate Jeb Bush or a slimme-down Christie as the rabid base refuses to consider anyone but Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.
In 2012, they couldn't lauch a full civil war against Romney because they didn't have a Paul or a Cruz to be the voice of the oppostion; this time, they likely will.
Eat yourself, Republicans. Eat yourself.
Which makes the Democrats with their endless spending into debt, continual disregard for civil rights (Patriot Act extension, NDAA to arrest citizens without charge or trial), and economic policies that favor the elites and corpies as the gap between the rich and poor continue widen, any better.
Are the GOP corrupt self-serving bastards? Yes. But I fail to see exactly why the Democrats are supposed to be any different when all they seem to be doing is the exact same things you just described.
As you said, the GOP will for 2016 either be nominating a demagogue like Cruz, or an establishment stooge like Christie. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Dems will probably nominate Hillary, a woman who's done nothing but use her husband's name and reputation to propel herself to office.
As South Park put it, why do I have to choose between the big fat turd and the stupid douche? Can't we not just cast out both parties into the desert and nominate people who will actually be held accountable to their constituents?
You... you do realize that Republican administrations typically spend more then Democratic ones, right? Reagan and Bush were the deficit-exploders, Clinto and Obama have to clean up after them.
And no, you don't have to vote for either. You can vote for a 3rd-party candidate. You act like this isn't an option. Just don't expect me to vote for Nader.
Yes, I realize the debt is partially Bush's fault. So Obama's solution to his predecessor's reckless and out of control spending...is even more reckless and out of control spending.
The national debt was around $5 trillion by the time Bush left office. It has increased to $11 trillion under Obama. I'm sorry, but if you were trying to convince that Obama is blameless for our debt, I'm afraid you're wrong.
In regards to a third party, yes, I intend to deny my vote to both the Dems and GOP. Here's the thing, if we ever want to free ourselves from the two-headed monster that is our political parties, other people need to start waking up.
Good lord.
I wish, just once, people like you could SEE with your own eyes, the state that the country would be in if Obama had suddenly and drastically SLASHED all spending at the beginning of his first term.
Banking system collapsing? GM bankrupt? Let them fail, we have to think of the deficit!
Military commitments made under Bush? Bah, cancel it all! I'll gut everything we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the Republicans will have to give me props for being a deficit hawk!
Infrastructure? Stimulus? Oh, and massive tax breaks for both people and businesses? Not one penny! We're in belt-tightening mode here, people!
....and the nation would be effectively tanked.
The reason you can't and won't see that is because no possible administration would have taken that course. You have to understand something here, sonny. The Republicans knew that the government was going to have to spend big in 2009 and 2010. McCain would have had to do the exact same thing. They only SAID that Obama should cut spending to the bone as a political ploy. Let him do the dirty work, and stand back and pretend that nothing needed to be done -- easy. Stupid people who don't understand how anything works will sit back and say "durr, yeah, you can't spend yer way outta recession!"
Even as we speak, there are loads of articles about how the long-term debt is coming down. You just better hope and pray that a Republican doesn't win in 2016, or they'll reverse that trend with some hot new wars and more tax cuts for the rich.
Hillary 2016.
They say the deficit is going down, not the debt. We are soon going to be running into problems when the Baby Boomers become eligible for Social Security, which is already in a rather precarious position. And the only reason the deficit is even going down is because, Surprise!, they're finally slowing down their spending. Which is what should have been done from the start.
You're putting words into my mouth when you're saying I endorse absolutely no spending. What I endorse is reasonable spending. A nearly $1 trillion stimulus package that did nothing to the economy except bailout the banks and Wall Street fat cats that got us into this mess to begin with is not reasonable. Keynesian economic can only work if we have a surplus to work with.
Now, I am not opposed to the government spending money if it can be spent wisely and into areas that need it. Infrastructure, disaster relief, etc. The problem is that money is being used to fund a bunch of nanny-state entitlement programs that have lately turned into a gigantic money sink as the Baby Boomers become eligible for social security. Now I'm not saying we outlaw Social Security and Medicare, a safety net is needed. But they seriously need to think of a better way on how to fund those programs. Otherwise, the stuff happening in Europe with governments unable to pay their debt, is going to happen to us down the road. Afterwards, you can forget about Obamacare because we will have no means to afford it.
In regards to taxation, the problem with raising taxes is that it doesn't matter if you're still spending like crazy. I mean, we can tax everyone with a $200K for 100% of their income, but it wouldn't come close to resolving the debt. Its only going to work if you slow down the spending rate to a reasonable level. Now, I am not opposed to raising taxes on the rich, but it shouldn't be treated as a be-all, end-all solution. (And meanwhile, Obama's new budget plan intends to raise taxes on the working and middle class despite campaign promises to the contrary.)
...You know, I agree with you on a lot more things than you think. I don't want anymore pointless wars, I hate Fox News, I wish someone would shut up Rush Limbaugh, I certainly don't think the GOP has my interests at their mind. So we're in agreement on that. So, what is about my opinion on Obama and the Democrats that irks you so?
Oh, you don't irk me, i just love to fight.
Did you know that you're the only person who's ever commented here? This blog, in all honesty, is a bit of a placeholder, and every entry is lifted from my private webpage/emails to friends. I just need this blog here for other purposes.
So. You're my number one fan. Congrats!
Well...thanks!
Random question though, what do you think of Chris Christie?
Obviously, his politics and mine don't match up, and if he were running against Hillary in 2016, i'd probably vote for Hillary (unless Christie seriously impressed me.)
Aside from that, i don't feel the type of revulsion when looking at him that i feel when seeing, say, Louie Gohmert, George W. Bush, Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, etc. Christie's not a bible-thumping loon and he's got a good deal of charm and by all accounts, genuinely cares about the place he governs. So props for that.
I'm glad he got the weight-loss surgery, and i hope he lives a long and happy life.
Post a Comment