Acronym – TISFKAT

Hey Zobeid! (SoBeIt)

I was recently made aware that the term ‘teabagger’ is regarded by some as an insulting slur, used by ‘liberals’ to negatively portray a certain movement active in the US. Now myself being ‘eurotrash’, what is my business referring to said movement X in anyway? Well – I personally have after some deliberation regard some people this movement as being overly racist, occasionally dominionist, eliminationist, nutcase, producerist, nationalist, populist, zealot, fascist losers.

Mind you, I don’t know for sure since I am not an american and I don’t have ‘boots on the ground’ that allow me to come up with a more mature analysis. But based on my one sided following of (gargle) John Stewart, Rachel Maddow (OMG what a woman), Michael Moore, Keith Olberman, Huffington Post, Truthout, Daily Kos – (as well as watching the career psychotics Glenn Back, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Malkin etc.) I know roughly where I stand, where they respectively stand and what notions I favor and disfavor in the US political debate. Some may say – that’s none of your business and I’d disagree. What happens in US politics is about as interesting and relevant to me as what happens in Imperial Rome heartland, 1st century AD if I would be a Gaul.

If the US sneezes, people across the globe die. Hence, if the US is overrun by “a diffuse demographic” that thinks it has the answers, but of which its members have an average measurable IQ under 80 (with some marked exceptions, such as sexy ambiguous Zobeid) then the fallout of that movement may have grave consequences by all people living under Pax Americana. These nutters can seriously screw up my hair day in the future.

Now what would I care how this diffuse movement of Foxites were called? Why would the term ‘teabagger’ be a problem? – well- by and large because some in this movement object to this ‘slur’, and I love those to death – case in point Zobeid Zuma (Miss X!). Zobi used to loathe me and my big mouth until she slowly got the impression I ‘occasionally’ say something meaningful, after which she has been treating me with a measure of polite respect. Since she is invariable HOT I sure like that.

So, for those few upstarting moral people in ‘the diffuse grass-roots upswell of discontent in the US‘ (such as Zobi) I let it be known I will not be using the demeanor slur “TeaBaggers” (and in my case I’d say “TeaVaggers”) but shall make demure reference to the acronym TISFKAT, or “The Insulting Slur Formerly Known as Teabaggers”.

My contribution to world peace!

5 thoughts on “Acronym – TISFKAT

  1. Oooh. . . So I am “sexy ambiguous”? I think I like both of those words. 😀

    Khannea, I see you have a long list of news sources from which you garner your views — almost all of which are ones I don’t watch or read, and many of which I hold deep skepticism, or even antipathy, towards. (re: Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh) So, maybe that goes some way towards explaining why our opinions are so opposed.

    Michael Moore first came to infamy with his film Bowling For Columbine, so his name has been Mud with me ever since, and I’ve systematically disregarded everything he’s done or said since then. As for Limbaugh. . . There was a time when he seemed reasonable, which was maybe 20 years ago. Since then he seems to have moved somewhere to the right of Darth Maul. (Or Dick Cheney. I get Cheney and Darth Maul confused sometimes.)

    Glen Beck is overwrought — I think he needs a sedative or something — but on most issues (other than religion) his views aren’t too far from mine. He’s the closest thing to a libertarian voice we have on national TV, as far as I’m aware.

    John Stewart is a very funny guy. He’s left-leaning. His jokes are usually good. Sometimes they are funny-but-unfair which leaves me with an odd mixture of laughing while gritting my teeth. But his show is entertainment, not news. (Admittedly the line between the two has gotten pretty blurry these days, and a lot of what’s on Fox is really entertainment under the guise of news.)

    If you want something that really is “fair and balanced”, you might try subscribing to The Week. Don’t trust their website, though. The dead trees edition is the way to go.

  2. By my politics if not active involvement I qualify as “teabagger”. Do you find me to be at all racist, dominionist, eliminationist, nutcase, nationalist or any of the other package deal of nasty words you put together (and in some cases seem to have made up)? The point being that you are slamming an awful lot of people, many just as sensible and caring as you or I at one time. You are tarring everyone of them with the same brush. In other words you are doing exactly what is behind things like racism. You are reasoning from over-generalization and condemning on the basis of it.

    You know, in the last couple of weeks I have bother to listen to Glenn Beck’s program. Except for his opinions on religion’s place in the founding of American and a his over dramatizing and oversimplification he doesn’t qualify for most of the words on your list either. He is not a “psychotic” from what I have seen in the least. Even though I disagree with him on several things he is one of the more honest (in the sense that I believe he believes what he says and is not a nutcase) commentators I have seen in quite some time on the tube. He is not an Alex Jones. I utterly abhor that creature. Nor is he a Rush Limbaugh, ditto.

    If you want to seriously talk about issues and be taken seriously then stop with the over-generalization and the over-dramatic condemnations. They make you look like a mirror image of Alex Jones or others you abhor rightly. Get a grip.

    1. No that is the odd thing. You are categorically not

      * racist
      * dominionist
      * eliminationist
      * nutcase
      * nationalist
      * populist
      * zealot
      * or fascist

      However you do ‘appear to exhibit’ quite strong (and worrisome) producerist sentiments.

      And that is a dilemma for me. Up until this point I have categorically come to regard what is loosely termed ‘teabagging’ a considerable threat to the value system I stand for, if no diametrically opposed. I will argue this position if you insist, but at the core it is based on the core value that society, people and state have inalienable responsibilities towards every individual.

      You clear represent a breaking points in this – you are evidence ‘not all orcs are evil’. But I already knew this – you can argue sensibly with some TISFKAT and come to an agreement. This is quite hopeful because it may save the US from what I’d literally call barbarism, and that is very very relevant to my standard of living.

      As for Glen – I have listened to him, and on the scale of wickendess I have heard him say things that are vile and contemptible from my values (progressives are a cancer in US politics”)

      Plus I loathe his position on Europe

      and I cannot accept his position. I know the reasons for this are causes which axiomatically divide you and me. I am *for* what you slurr nanny state (I call it a client state). I don’t want a nanny state – I demand a state I can trust, and politicians to serve my interests.

      Let’s not begin argue the merits of the monstrous creatures called Rush or Alex Jones, or Malkin or the royal demonic cunt Ann Coulter. These consistently express values which I consider as ‘enemy’. I know that places me in the ‘uncompromizing’ field far to the left of any of them. Yes I know, I cannot ever come to grips with that arch of the TISFKAT ‘greater’ movement. Yes I know that every TISFKAT disagrees on what constitutes TISFKAT, or even what founding fathers intended.

      But you have to understand is that what I have seen in terms of core values of this entity, I can ascribe no almost none, or none at all.

      The only sentiment I hear in TISFKAT circles is the argument against the current US monetary order, the federal reserve and corporate handouts. So as far as I am concerned the only breath of fresh air in this terrifying political entity is Ross Perot Ron Paul. But while I am happy with some of his statements, I don’t necessarily think he is a moral person – and you know why – I think base adequate medical care for all should be a binding responsibility of state, people and society. Irrevocable.

      1. One thing that irks me is how you keep tossing out the phrase “state, people and society” as if these were the same thing. They aren’t even close to being the same thing. I completely agree that society needs to provide basic needs for the disabled and the needy. But what part of society? Your only answer is the “the state”, and anybody who has a different answer you are quick to brand as stupid (average IQ less than 80? really?) or evil.

        Even if we were to agree that “the state” should be responsible for this (and I’d need some convincing before I accede to that point), then the next question would be: What is the state? Where I live, the state is Texas. I pay taxes to Texas. Texas provides public education. Texas paves our roads and issues my driver’s license. Texas provides our courts and law enforcement. Our capital is Austin.

        The US Constitution delegates certain responsibilities and corresponding powers to the US Government. Providing medical care is not among those. I actually rather like the idea of each state pursuing its own plan and competing with the other states for people and jobs. That’s the laboratory of democracy.

        By the way, the State of Texas is bound by its own constitution to have a balanced budget. Unlike the US Govt, Texas cannot print money, nor can it borrow unlimited sums. It is, therefore, held to some kind of fiscal realism in a way that the Congress is not.

      2. I am in favor of demand a state that can be trusted, empowers its citizens with a mixture of tough love and patience and, while democratic, maintains the long view over populist sentiment. I desire an empowering nanny state that teaches its citizens to mean strong and mean on an individual level, and feels it can trust other people in society as well as its people. I strongly prefer smaller countries and assume by default that any country over 50 million is corrupt. I prefer extremely liberal lifestyles. I demand absolute minimum living conditions for every citizen, including rent control, adequate free medical care (and freedom to insure for more if desired), and basic incomes about half my current welfare levels. I favor technocracy over consumerism. I like it if people make decent incomes, but a society is formed by a duty and responsibility to provide minimum pretexts to life.

        I am against the state acknowledging the concept of marriage. Its your own private business.

        I would want to tie state investment in new technologies to a constitutional minimum, and that would include pretty firm investments in research into space technologies.

        I propose a maximum income and I’d vote for it, constitutionally linked to the minimum wage – increase the maximum wage, then decrease the minimum wage, a ratio of 1:100 would be nice and 1:200 for that portion of basic income. So if in a society nobody can legally make more than a million a year, minimum wage is 10.000 for full-time employment, and every citizen gets basic income of 5.000. Or something to that effect. I am strongly for progressive taxes.

        My best political climate with be a Japan with the liberal values of the Netherlands managed by liberal humanist techoprogressives. I would favor laws to allow the formation of enclaves with ‘alternate rules’ (such as legal drug practices). I desire the abolition of the current grotesque international expenses on investments in arms. I think every and all corporate influence over politics should be constitutionally transparent,

        I am against the death penalty, and I am against prisons. But you wouldn’t like my preferred alternative.

        I am strongly Islam sceptical and I would at this stage vote for regarding Islam as an illegal ideology. I am sceptical of organized religions and this would reflect in my preferred policies. Religion should be a hobby.

        I favor a system of democracy where voters vote in a series of rounds – first round anyone can vote for anyone else, including your high school teacher, or Brittney spears. Second round those people vote for someone of that group; Third round the same – people can refer votes for them to another candidate automatically – the country is then ruled by those who are elected in the last rounds and the President would be the last man/woman standing. These then appoint career technocrat-scientists of proven skills who then execute policies.

Comments are closed.