The best image I have ever seen.

GLORIOUSLeader

IanExMachina

Hahaha awesome.

Have another image:

CommandoDude

This bugs you?

ninjaclown

Source please, this is awesome.

glennmagusharvey

GLORIOUSLeader

I got it from a FARK thread; specifically, this one.

glennmagusharvey

Turtle

Right, because tea partiers all hate women and homosexuals, all want Obama dead, and are all religious.

IanExMachina

^Also they are shit at doing signs.

TuefelHundenIV

Turtle: It is called satire.  Can you show me where it says it is serious?

Nyktos

Yup, that does sound about right, with the possible exception of the hating women bit. (They don't hate Sarah Palin!)

TuefelHundenIV

No the rest of the country does that for them.  Either that or they think she is an attractive man :P

IanExMachina

^I'd suck her off

glennmagusharvey

Actually, you have a weird mix of social conservatives (the usual anti-gay, anti-abortion crowd) with wannabe liberatarians who don't hate women but hate everyone and their healthcare.

GLORIOUSLeader

No we can't have serious discussion this is IJBM

REMOVED BECAUSE I HAVE SOME SENSE OF TASTE

Turtle

It is called satire.  Can you show me where it says it is serious?

Satire is generally meant to prove a serious point.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe it's a parody of the ridiculous notion that tea partiers hate women, gays, and Obama. 

But I got the distinct impression that whoever made it seems to have a low opinion of the Tea Party, rather than of the stereotype associated with the Tea Party.

Nyktos

Uh, I'm pretty sure they do in fact hate Obama. Isn't that kind of the entire point?

Turtle

No, the point is to oppose his policies.  That doesn't require hatred.

ninjaclown

Look at the people who compromise the party and tell me with a straight face that there is no hatred whatsoever.

Turtle

I didn't say "no hatred whatsoever."  I said it's not the norm.

GLORIOUSLeader

Oh c'mon, even kitteh blenders won't stop you people!

Nyktos

@Turtle: If the point was to oppose his policies, you'd think they'd be attacking his actual policies, as opposed to the bullshit strawmen they go after. They're a bunch of people who would hate him no matter what he did -- either because he's black or (in my opinion more likely) simply because he's a Democrat -- and just want excuses to do so.

Gelzo

I'm not sure about the exact demographics of the group, but the tea party movement is certainly not known for being reasonable, and I have my doubts about the wisdom of someone identifying as a member.

Turtle

Um, they do attack his policies.  Hence the whole "stop taxing everything" stance.

They're a bunch of people who would hate him no matter what he did --
either because he's black or (in my opinion more likely) simply because
he's a Democrat -- and just want excuses to do so.

Does anyone really believe that the majority of people who don't want Obama for a leader don't want him because he's black?  Really?

And, being a Democrat kind of implies that he's going to have policies that they're opposed to.  But Obama's policies, especially, are really really awful.  Combine that with Bush being so sucky in his two terms and you get a very fed-up group.

Gelzo

I don't think the tea party contains a majority of every person who disapproves of Obama.

Codename_M308

It doesn't help that Obama is turning into another Bush, with the third most-likely useless war and all.

glennmagusharvey

> Look at the people who compromise the party

You mean "compose", or "whom the party comprises".

> Um, they do attack his policies.  Hence the whole "stop taxing everything" stance.

Except his policy was never to "tax everything".

There's a difference between attacking policies and attacking what aren't actual policies but are merely believed to be them.

There's also a difference between actually opposing a policy on policy grounds, and opposing a policy because it came from the other side.

> But Obama's policies, especially, are really really awful.

No, they aren't.

I'll let you know that his stimulus bill got some roads fixed a few blocks down from where I live, and his healthcare reform bill means that I still get insurance coverage for another two years and that the insurance can't turn down my mom's getting cataract surgery done due to pre-existing condition b.s., and it came with a provision to cut out the needless middlemen in college loans--something that I've had to deal with myself.

Not to mention setting better rules on the financial markets (due in part to their now-famous misbehavior), pushing for air-only military action over Libya and being quite wise to keep a low military profile after that, and as a cherry on top, killing Osama bin Laden.

Nyktos

@Turtle:

Um, they do attack his policies.  Hence the whole "stop taxing everything" stance.

Yeah, like I said. Strawmen.

Turtle

setting better rules on the financial markets
There shouldn't be any rules of that sort on the financial markets.

pushing for air-only military action over Libya
There shouldn't have been any military action in (or over) Libya.

and as a cherry on top, killing Osama bin Laden
A result of a war Bush got us into.  Not that Bush had any more authority to get us into it than Obama does.

I'll let you know that his stimulus bill got some roads fixed a few
blocks down from where I live, and his healthcare reform bill means that
I still get insurance coverage for another two years and that the
insurance can't turn down my mom's getting cataract surgery done due to
pre-existing condition b.s., and it came with a provision to cut out the
needless middlemen in college loans--something that I've had to deal
with myself.
The only part of that that the federal government has any business in is fixing the roads.

Except his policy was never to "tax everything".
That's been the policy of pretty much every President in the past century, dude.

glennmagusharvey

> There shouldn't be any rules of that sort on the financial markets.

Of what sort?

> There shouldn't have been any military action in (or over) Libya.

Why not?

> A result of a war Bush got us into.  Not that Bush had any more authority to get us into it than Obama does.

1. Does that mean that he doesn't get credit for the kill?
2. Does that mean he should have cut and run from Afghanistan?

> The only part of that that the federal government has any business in is fixing the roads.

So you're saying that my mom's cataract surgery should NOT be covered by insurance because they somehow decided that it's a pre-existing condition?

So you're saying that I should not have health insurance coverage just because I'm a college graduate who hasn't been able to find work yet?

So you're saying that the government shouldn't even be giving out student loans, so that banks can charge students up the wazoo in interest?

> That's been the policy of pretty much every President in the past century, dude.
> past century
Not when the top bracket tax rate has fallen from like 90% to 36%.

Turtle

Of what sort?
Of the regulatory sort.

Why not?
Because there was no official declaration of war.

1. Does that mean that he doesn't get credit for the kill?
2. Does that mean he should have cut and run from Afghanistan?
1. No.
2. Probably.

So you're saying that my mom's cataract surgery should NOT be covered by
insurance because they somehow decided that it's a pre-existing
condition?

So you're saying that I should not have health
insurance coverage just because I'm a college graduate who hasn't been
able to find work yet?

So you're saying that the government
shouldn't even be giving out student loans, so that banks can charge
students up the wazoo in interest?
I'm saying that the government has no authority to ensure or provide these things.