(Rep)rise of the idiots

Crapaud

I started a thread on 'Merkin politics/the Tea Party a while back, but either the forum search is useless or it's fallen off of the internets.

Anyway, could someone read this and tell me whether it's satire or not - I'm losing the ability to distinguish the difference. Either way, it's good for a laugh.

Ta.

deptfordmarmoset

I think the writer is trying to say with humour that it's serious, if you know what I mean. Or that a good number of bigots seriously believe in Bachmann, at least. And that the only way of dealing with it is not to pretend it's not happening but is to say out loud that, yes, it's laughably stupid and it's happening.

Ok, I said ''I think'' at the beginning, what I really mean is ''I hope....''

ddraver

Rolling Stone are always pretty heavy handed with their satire - some of it borders on ranting!!

tailwindhome

It's not satire, it's a warning.

Sirius631

Sh*t, now I'm worried. That's the kind of person the US will let get their hands on the button?

el_presidente

Matt Taibi has a very "soundbite-happy" style (he called Goldman Sachs the "a giant vampire squid with it's blood funnel on the face of humanity) but the article is all factual.

Michele Bachmann is certainly a serious challenger for the Republican Party nomination, so the article is by no means satire.

Bozman

It, they, she are probably more of a threat than muslim fundamentalism.

MattC59

She's another Tea Party religious nut case. I think that the article used the term "Bat censored Crazy".
She's just at the other end of the spectrum to the muslim fundamentalists.

She may be legally and financially qualified up to the eyeballs, but that career is constrained by rules, and regulations. Becoming president of the U-Sah meand she isn't (so much). Religion and Politics should be kept seperate (especially when a simpleton is involved), but you just know that she won't be able to do it !!

Mike Healey

What I find curious is their enthusiasm for the original constitution.

So that's slavery and no votes for women, then

deptfordmarmoset

Mike Healey wrote:

What I find curious is their enthusiasm for the original constitution.

So that's slavery and no votes for women, then

There are times (i.e post-Palinontology) when no votes for women starts to become quite an acceptable notion.

Crapaud

Bozman wrote:

It, they, she are probably more of a threat than muslim fundamentalism.

The threat is fundamentalism full stop. It dosen't matter whether it's religeous, political ior philosophical ideology, blind faith and an ego that tells you that everything you're doing is a fundamental good whether anyone wants it or not, tends to lead to horrors.

Fundamentalism, it seems to me, goes hand in hand with paranoia and delusions of grandeur.

These feckers scare the censored put of me.

(You'll know when the censored 's been scared out of me when my user name changes to 'Aud')

-spider-

Crapaud wrote:

Bozman wrote:

(You'll know when the censored 's been scared out of me when my user name changes to 'Aud')

That's odd!