I dislike taxes so much that I’m going to put my balls on your face.

Have you guys heard about this “tea-bagging” bullshit? Apparently there are still three or four people out there holding onto the idea that their lives will get better if they will only vote in support of the rich people who have been fucking them over since 1980, and they have gotten together and formed what is undoubtedly going to be deemed the most embarrassing populist political movement of all time. There have been gatherings all over the country of late at which people dump boxes of Lipton into the water as a political protest. They fancy themselves the inheritors of the legacy of those dudes in Boston who, in 1773, tossed a bunch of British tea into the harbor in order to let the Brits know they weren’t going to be paying any taxes unless, in exchange for their taxes, they’d gain representation in Parliament. You know, that little event known as the Boston Tea Party that catalyzed the American Revolution. I totally see the parallels, don’t you?

These new jack tea-dumping rabblerousers think that by littering and wasting postage stamps mailing tea to the White House and Congress, they’re going to kick off the Revolution of 2009, which will put a stop to the three months of socialist tyranny and excessive taxation they’ve labored under so valiantly. (Oh, right, no one’s taxes have been increased at all.) And Republican politicians, who couldn’t get the media to give a shit about them if they were to get caught fucking horses on the Capitol steps in Wilson Phillips t-shirts,  can’t wait to get in on the party. (But only the cool kids get to play. Michael Steele, the black guy the GOP hired to let us all know they’re so racist that they can’t tell that the reason we elected Barack Obama extends beyond the fact that he’s a black guy, has been clamoring to participate in one of the big planned April 15th tea-bagging rallies, but has been officially uninvited from the Chicago event.) The stated aims of these tea-baggers include such well-thought-out ideas as an end to all taxation, the dissolution of the Federal Reserve (not that I’m a fan of the Fed, but these people surely don’t understand how the Fed works or why they want to see it dissolved), the jettisoning of the stimulus plan, and the banning of poor people. OK, I made that last one up.

It must be intellectually comforting to view the world like Ayn Rand did. It just makes everything so simple, and it really helps boost the self-esteem of people who really need it. If the average middle-class suburb-dwelling telecommunications salesman couldn’t pat himself on the back for having achieved a bunch of shit that was actually handed to him by a society designed to meet his needs, he’d have time to think about his life and might actually realize just how uninteresting and unnoteworthy he really is. These asshole myopic Libertarian types truly don’t understand that taxes create the government that creates the institutional and administrative structures that allow businesses to exist and succeed. They don’t understand that they’re able to make a shitload of money in the value-added goods sector because people in other countries toil for almost no recompense in order to provide the basic components that go into the production of those value-added goods. They don’t understand the luck they’ve had being born male/white/able-bodied/etc. and being born into a family that could provide them with the kind of home environment and education that they need to take advantage of the opportunities that privilege presents to them. They don’t understand that our entire social structure exists to allow them to succeed. You can tell they don’t get any of this when you hear them (attempt to) explain why they object to the stimulus plan (or welfare, Social Security, food stamps, national health care, etc.). Republicans and Libertarians love to talk about “personal responsibility” and “pulling oneself up by one’s boostraps,” which is basically code for “I think niggers, beaners, lazy whores, and anyone else who wasn’t born with white male middle class privilege deserves to starve.” I cannot stomach conservative political ideology. It’s so disgusting, entitled, and willfully myopic that I just want to puke on everyone who dares bring it up in my presence. And Libertarians don’t get a pass because they want to legalize weed and prostitution (you know why they’re into that, and it ain’t because they’re in a big hurry to protect women or AIDS patients).

So, these misinformed, self-righteous, entitled dipshits who think they’re the shiznit for having two SUVs and a margarita machine have decided to waste a bunch of tea (which they’ve already paid taxes on) and make assholes of themselves in public in order to show everyone just how thoughtless and stupid they are, to make sure we all know that, no matter what the political climate and no matter what pressing issues we face, they’re on the side of the even richer, more disgusting people they aspire to be.

And they’re calling themselves “tea-baggers.” The whole thing apparently started with some housewife who decided to mail some bags of Lipton to the White House, which is innocent enough (although it’s still stupid), but apparently you can no longer use the words “tea” and “bag” within ten words of each other without some Harold and Kumar fan getting all pumped about the chance to make reference to yet another Urban Dictionary-type “sex” act. Yeah, dude, people all over the country are using the term teenagers have coined to refer to putting their balls on someone’s face/in someone’s mouth to refer to a misguided, totally nonsensical political protest movement. Once again, we have an example of the whole “sexual assault equals bad-assness” meme. I don’t get it, dude. I get pissed about things all the time, but I don’t go around telling people that I’m going to put my vagina on their face to show them who’s boss. I don’t know, maybe I don’t do that because I’m not a complete asshole with an IQ of 43.

The media just can’t get enough of this shit and has gone completely koo-koo for ball jokes, which I suppose isn’t all that surprising considering the fact that they’re nearly all 40-year-old Seth Rogan fans. But even old people are doing this shit, dude. Geriatric men on cable news channels are referring to groups of elderly citizens getting together to “teabag Obama” and to “teabag Congress,” and everyone is pretending that they don’t know that when they use “teabag” as a verb, they’re saying that old men and women are putting their balls on the president’s and Congress’s faces.

I hate America sometimes.

(Some organization is robo-calling people to get them involved in the tea-bagging craze. I know this because my mom told me. That’s right, dude, a robot called my mom to ask her if she’s into tea-bagging.)

Bookmark and Share


36 thoughts on “I dislike taxes so much that I’m going to put my balls on your face.

  1. I truly cannot comprehend the levels of idiocy required for the tea bag protest. Obviously, people who support the GOP don’t have the strongest grasp of history. But for those happy to limit their exposure to America’s past to Paul Revere, nursery rhymes, Thanksgiving, and other RAH RAH AMERICA bullshit, I at least expect a passing knowledge of the Boston Tea Party.

    Yes, conservative dipshits, the Tea Party was in response to taxation without representation. Last time I checked, you and your ilk ran the damn country into the ground for the past eight years and still occupy many positions of power in the media, central intelligence, states, and the courts (trust me, as a law student I’m tripping over too many of you conservative shits).

    Oh, and you can vote, unlike the Bostonians!

    Say what? Oh, you think representation requires that someone (perhaps the Supreme Court?) hand you victory on a silver platter and allow you to place your testicles upon the heads of the more popular candidate? Democracy, dumbass, look it up. Memo that douche Norm Coleman while you’re at it. I’ll wait.


  2. Oh, that is high-larious!
    You have such a way with words, I am laughing my ass off. I hope a robot calls my mom and asks her if she’s into tea-bagging.

    Why is it that those born with the most privilege (white, male, straight, able-bodiedness) act like they pulled themselves out of the depths of hell all by themselves. I guess having ones parents pay for prep school and an ivy league education had absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Do you think it’s possible that the old guys on TV don’t really know what they are saying? I’m not sure that it’s common usage. My mom isn’t getting the joke.


  3. News flash, conservative idiots: One of the drawbacks to living in a free society is that sometimes politicians you don’t like get elected. Live with it. 2004 was the first election where I was old enough to vote. I was crushed when Bush won (not that I really liked Kerry all that much, but I wasn’t about to support W). Anyway, I complained about it for a while and then I got on with my life. Because that’s what you have to do sometimes.

    These people spent the last eight years destroying this country. They are out of power for a good reason. My only wish is that they continue to do stupid, pointless things like Tea Party protests so that they will be driven even further underground.


  4. Leave it to conservative privilege-mongers to misappropriate history.

    They’ve spent enough time revising the shit out of it, after all.

    I quoted your entire post. You’ve really outdone yourself.


  5. “The media just can’t get enough of this shit and has gone completely koo-koo for ball jokes, which I suppose isn’t all that surprising considering the fact that they’re nearly all 40-year-old Seth Rogan fans”

    They are so idiotic it’s intolerable. I can’t even watch what passes for “news” any more. You have them pegged, Nine. 40-year-old Seth Rogan fans–HA!


  6. Man, if you weren’t already marrying that Davetavius, I would totally propose to you provided we could go to my home state of Iowa. That’s the most awesome thing I’ve read all week.


  7. Meh…IIRC, various people wanted (presumably still do) to impeach Obama, as president, before he became president. Personally, I think that’s a little hard to top.

    Though…I’m a little bit surprised at it being called tea-bagging. “I’m going to stick my testicles in Barack Obama’s mouth”…odd.

    On the other hand, can you imagine if Hillary was President? Every compromise would prove she was a back alley whore, anything said against her would be a rape (well…not a “rape” rape, but one of those things that real men do to women like that who deserve it), and there’d be something terribly wrong with anyone who said that this was a little bit much.


  8. I get pissed about things all the time, but I don’t go around telling people that I’m going to put my vagina on their face to show them who’s boss.

    I laughed really hard at this.

    Dang it, are these those people who think that anyone who’s on government assistance for any reason Just Need to Try Harder?


  9. I heard on the radio this morning that they’re doing this shit in Annapolis and D.C. today. They only referred to it as “tea parties” but I still laughed my ass off thinking about this post. Also, they are not allowed to actually throw tea bags into the water, at least the Potomac. This has got to be the most impotent, pathetic protest of all time.


  10. Good post, but who says tea-bagging as a sexual practice is non-consensual?


    “It must be intellectually comforting to view the world like Ayn Rand did.”

    I’d imagine so! Very soothing to imagine that CEO’s of massive corporations are the most powerful members in society. Your mind is too occupied trying to wrap itself around that paradox to do anything much else…


          1. You claimed that the act of inserting testicles into someone’s mouth constitutes “sexual assault”. I’d suggest that that sounds like a rather risky way to violate someone, given that the mouth is where the teeth are located & that claiming all tea bagging is sexual assault needs some substantiation.

            But like I said, it’s otherwise a good post. Very effective take down of the state-hating capitalism-lovers.


                1. They are referring to teabagging people in a non-consensual manner, unless you think they’re saying the president wants to be teabagged. People often do that, refer to someone having ass-raped, teabagged, etc. someone as a way to express domination.


                  1. Wasn’t exactly how I interpreted it. I was thinking literal-with-absurdist-double-entendre & with a lot of them not getting the reference because they’re out of touch.

                    Maybe that was their meaning, though. The right are stupid enough to be amused by stuff along those lines (see ref: John McCain’s little-mentioned-by-the-media bestiality rape joke), so I could be wrong.

                    @ any rate, I’m happy with them wasting their time making themselves looking like idiots. Hopefully this will mean they’ll stay out of power longer.


  11. *a thought*

    Whether or not I agree with the politics/impetus behind these tea party protests, I, for one, am thrilled to see a lot of people finally getting off their asses and speaking up for change they wish to see–apathy is a whole hell of a lot worse than what is kind of silly protest.

    This last election was a great catalyst in this regard; I’m excited to see more and more people–no matter their political persuasion–voting, protesting, marching, just plain getting involved in the democratic process–it’s fucking rad.


  12. It’s not just conservatives. There’s a lot of misguided independents, Libertarians, (do not equivocate between Republican and Libertarian, by the way. Just because two people are both wrong doesn’t mean they’re all wrong in the same way) some of the more center-left, and anyone else that doesn’t understand economics that are mad about Obama “giving money to failed banks” and similar bullshit.


    1. Yeah, but the whole thing was started by Libertarians, and the majority of the participants were NASCAR and NFL-type Republicans, who are a fucking national embarrassment. And I know the difference between a Republican and a Libertarian: Libertarians are economic conservatives who can’t deal with the Jesus bullshit of the GOP and are more socially liberal. I don’t care if someone’s anti-war and agrees with me that drugs need to be legalized if they’re still stupid enough to believe that “free markets” benefit anyone but plutocrats.


  13. Conservatives are ridiculous. My officemate is conservative and when she’s asked about it she always says something about “individualism” and “personal responsibility” and it’s such bullshit. If she’s so into individualism, why is she so gung-ho about the military, which is the most anti-individual institution, uh, ever? And what about the responsibility of corporations, which were ruled to be individuals by the Supreme Court, after all? Every word out of their mouths contradicts whatever they just said before it. They know it, too, it’s just that they know if they say they hate and fear anything different and new, the majority of people will disagree with them.


      1. Corporations are, in many ways, considered to be “people” in the eyes of the law now. They have many of the same rights as people do — the right to free speech is what protects the corporate lobbyists and huge corporate donations to political campaigns. There are two major problems with this. One, though they’re given many of the rights people get, they’re given few of the responsibilities. For example, when corporations as a whole commit crimes, TPTB are rarely put in prison. (Eg., the recent car ads from Toyota easily meet definitions of harassment and stalking, but no criminal charges will be laid against any of the people responsible for the campaign.) Two, *corporations are not people*. Most of the rights/responsibilities of individuals were designed with human beings in mind, who live for less than 120 yrs, can only be in one place at one time, etc. Obviously this is going to cause problems when you try to apply the same rules to some loosely-defined, many-brained being that can theoretically “live” until the heat death of the universe.


  14. a black gay man thoroughly enjoys this post…..and he agrees……(definitely after dating a white male who is trying desperately to hold on to the privelege he has…willful ignorance is correct. )


  15. you might like this richard leader article from black agenda report this month. from what i gather, it wasnt the repubs who coined the phrase teabagging: they just referred to what they were doing as having tea “parties” and the lety liberal dickwad media/bloggers took it from there. they particularly like to invoke misogynist hate to further their progressive agenda…as you have noted elsewhere.



  16. As an Australian with a severe distaste for American (or Australian) lesser-of-two-evils “democracy” and a distinct aversion to the news media, I only caught the “tea-bagging” story fairly recently. I initially laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke-post or troll hax, until a google search provided enough references to corroborate the story. That prompted me to read a little further, leading me to this blog post.

    @ libertarian republicans: nice job, taking an incredibly significant event in your nation’s history and turning it into a bad joke via poorly thought out tub-thumping bullshit. Way to respect a legacy.

    @ the American media: nice job, taking a (admittedly foolish) political protest movement and using it as an excuse to make dick jokes. Way to hold a mirror up to society.

    As syndicalist702 wrote, you can’t really be surprised at conservative republicans misappropriating history… they wrote most of it.

    PS. 9-2, I’ve read some of your other posts and your “Who Is This Bitch?” intro. As a 30-something white Australian male, it is sometimes hard for me to agree 100% with everything you write (I occasionally need to work quite hard to overturn deep-seated assumptions that I wasn’t even fully aware of) but I sure as hell can respect your motivations and the informed, logical and witty way that you express your opinions. I’ll be coming back and sticking my oar in from time to time, definately.


  17. I have trouble understanding why people have made the conclusions they have in these comments, and especially why the blogger dislikes the teaparty movement and thinks their handful of issues meritless.

    It seems to me that the, at times aggressively stated, views are based off presuppositions that simply haven’t been justified nor do they strike me as correct.

    For example: the association of the people supporting the teabagger platform, such as there is one, with the US Republican party and its supporters. The teaparty movement is nonpartisan in all official manner of speaking, and there is simply no justification for this association made. Certainly the republicans have tried to co-op the popularity and press, but this doesn’t work the other way and make the tea partyers thus supportive of the Republicans. Myself, I support the tea partys and a limited federal government under the plain meaning of the Constitution, and have never voted for a Republican Presidential or gubernatorial candidate and vote much more often as a Democrat in other races. Why the hell would I be associated with supporters of the republican party, a species quite repugnant to me?

    Further, why is it presumed, by the commenters, that supporters have utilitzed social services/government to excel and now seek to repeal these? To my knowledge I support no policy that would do such other than federal college aid (which I believe should be handled by the states- the feds now take the state tax money and doll it out with strings attached that would otherwise have been available to the state) which in total has amounted to less than my yearly income all through college- a small figure indeed. This argument is again unsupported and argued with emotions rather than logic and clearly stated basises.

    Finally, the allegations of corporatism seem particularly unfounded. Beyond the lack of argument connecting this to the teapartys, the commenters have the gall to state this without explaining how vastly shrinking the federal government somehow increases collusion with business? As it is now, every sector gets its own handouts, and our rights are ameliorated in every law addressing funding, special programs, and even consumer protection law affecting business. It is always the case that these laws grant some right to the public treasury and provide some limitation on prexisting rights of the people, and a lean federal government would simply not have the power nor the resources to continue treating business in a discriminatory manner. The only reasonable argument is that a smaller federal tax burden would be like by business, but so what? Again, the directionality fallacy is plain- just cuz A like B doesn’t mean B likes or intended A. A lean federal government does not address at all the tax burden of businesses, and any contrary conclusion is simply presuming the government will change while the states do not, which is ridiculous.

    I would hope we could disagree with each other without presuming such insulting things of our opponents. I support many of the ideals backing the attacks against the tea party movement made in this website, and there is no reason why just because other have different ways to accomplish their ideals that it may be assumed that those who don’t support such mechanisms must be against the ideals.

    – A tea partyer who is against discrimination, for equal treatment under law, against corporatism, against dispartate treatment of business and individuals, for individual rights, and for a socially mobile society.


    1. 1 – A smaller federal government in today’s world = more corporate control of our daily lives as mass privatization would ensue. If we shrink government by doing away with the regulatory and administrative state, then we lose the ONLY safeguards we have (even though those have mostly been captured) against absolute corporatism as our entire election system has been taken over by corporate interests. The only alternative to that that makes any sense is public campaign finance, and I’m sure you don’t support that.
      2 – Businesses and individuals should not be treated the same way. Businesses are not human beings. Human beings matter more than money.
      3 – Social mobility in laissez-faire capitalism is a pipe dream. See the world before the Progressive Era and since the late 1970s.
      4 – Individual rights are great, but privileges are not rights, and a lot of the Libertarian types I meet often confuse the two. Controlling one’s own body is a right. Driving an SUV is a privilege.
      5 – I’m aware that the tea party scene was originally more closely aligned with Libertarianism than Republicanism, but a large number of Jesus-crazed, ultra-conservative (socially — I don’t know if any of them even understand economic conservatism) Republicans have jumped on board.
      6 – No one claimed that there are people on welfare arguing for an end to welfare. What has been said is that people who oppose “big government” and the welfare state often don’t understand that their own achievements in life could not have come to pass were it not for certain institutionalized features of our society that only government is capable of establishing (the interstate system, the legal foundation that allows capitalism to operate in this country, ports, cheap oil, public education, etc.). Not that I think the government has done a terrific job at any of those or that the worldwide socio-economic system that our infrastructure and those institutions support is a good thing. And that doesn’t even get into the issue of how capitalism operates. Global capitalism requires poor people to work. That means that if you aren’t poor, you are directly benefiting from the fact that someone else is. It’s 2010. We can no longer pretend that our lives are lived in isolation from those of others and from larger global power structures, even if it might be easy to imagine that they are for those of us who are reaping the rewards of those power structures.


  18. Thank you for your response. I understand your position much more, and I believe we closely agree as to our objections (though disagree as to the merits of the movement as originally stated).

    One thing I’d clarify: the movement isn’t very specific. Its a general resentment of overbearing government, especially the federal government. Me personally, I seek a highly federalized government where the US only handles defense, customs/immigration, diplomacy, US courts, and other matters delegated to them by the constitution (I feel the commerce clause is vastly stretched beyond its plain meaning).

    This does not mean I support a strictly libertarian state government: I think the state’s roll is an important one. As the states may enact any policy they wish, so long as they don’t violate the US Constitution, there will be some states leaning more towards socialism and some states more towards libertarianism. The buisness, people, and familys will naturally favor the best mix and will fuel a competition for the best governmetn that simply can’t exist with a federal monopoly. Moreover, if a state wants to be largely socialist, that’s their right as a democracy (or however they want to establish themselve, only a republic is required constitutionaly). If the state can provide care for health concerns cheaper than private insurance, buisness will seek out these states for their greater net compensation to workers per dollar spent by the employer. If the benefits are too expensive, the buisness and employees will seek cheaper states to live in.

    I think our federalist system is a good one. The Constitution is a great document that limits the most tyranical impulses of government and the people in a state may seek greater liberty and the best way of life from there.

    I completely agree with you regarding the religious right and the republicans jumping on the tea party bandwagon- its obsurd. A republican praising the tea party movement makes no sense- they are for just as big of a federal government as the worst democrats are, only they want the treasury to fund religious organizations and other bullshit like corporate payouts and privitization of government enterprises (prisons, schools, military, law enforcement, et cet) that is a clear conflict of interest and impossible to justify.

    The last thing I’d add is that I disagree with your claim that a smaller government would require greater collusion between buisness and gov’t. I see the drive for coruption to be essentially unchanged and not a function of the size of government. There is always political clout and campaign money to be had in patronizing the powerful (whether rich in money or people/political influence, such as a union or large employer, doesn’t matter). Limiting the size of government would simply limit the discressionary budget and lawful excuses to pay off political benefactors, but it would be a proportionate reduction at best- not a fundamental change. In the end, the people must vote against what they do not want: both parties are plainly guilty as a whole on this matter ,and if the people don’t start reading the votes of their representatives, or relying on those trustworthy organizations to summarize them, they will continue to vote on rhetoric rather than action, and the politicians can continue to bemoan cronyism/corruption while supporting it in practice. Shrinking government to the states would at least make the expenditures and handouts relevant to a much greater proportion of the electorate and it would if anything increase the opposition to handouts to buisnesses as the competing buisness and their workers, along with rep’s from districts not so-benefiting would have a powerful argument against the program and the representatives who institued or supported it.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I disagree with much of your blog, but find you a good writer, and find that I actually agree with most of your underlying positions- I just disagree with the manner in which you seek to advance these positions.

    Regards- John M


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s