Question of the Day (but not every day)

Thursday, January 27, 2011


Is it hypocritical for Republicans, or more specifically Anti-Government Teabag types, to take a government job?


Chris Of Rights 9:35 AM  

No. Tea Partiers aren't anti-government. That would be anarchists.

They're in favor of limited government.

By your logic, Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite for becoming President of the United States.

And please refrain from using the words "teabagger" or its like. It's beyond offensive.

Bob 9:44 AM  

Thanks for the answer.

While it is completely off topic, I have a hard time seeing the term I used "Teabag Types" as offensive, when the tea bag was a reguarly used prop of the movement and used by the protestors themselves.

Bob 9:51 AM  

One of the reasons I ask is that I work for a state agency, where like many (all?) states was bailed out by the Federal Government as part of the stimulus bill. Many of us likely owe our jobs to the stimulus, yet this agency is filled with people who scream about Government run-amok and how the Government needs to cut spending and how the stimulus bill was crap, etc.

Seems like they should resign or stop being a hypocrite.

Jay 10:50 AM  


I think there is a distinction between believing that limited government is a good idea and quitting your government job because the government is not as limited as you would like. I suppose that distinction could be labeled as hypocritical if one is feeling antagonistic, but that seems a bit harsh to me. I'm not trying to suggest that I agree with people who think the stimulus was a bad idea or that government should be more limited (quite the opposite, really). But I don't think I would label it as hypocrisy.

I think it IS hypocritical to rally against, for instance, optional government run health care when you receive medicare. But to me that is a different issue because an individual can (as far as I know) refuse to use medicare, but a single individual can have little direct impact on whether their state is bailed out of a budget shortfall.

Smitty 12:59 PM  

It's beyond offensive.

Our whole blog is offensive, Chris. Kinda our M.O. It's a cathartic release for us.

Monk-in-Training 1:25 PM  

I don't understand why 'teabagger' would be offensive, when clearly Chris of Rights used 'tea partiers' in his own post. If not tea bagger, partier, or whatever what would one call them? It seems to me that is the nomenclature they prefer to be used.

Smitty, I find your blog less offensive than I do most of our treatment of other human beings. :)

Your occasional colorful metaphors are nothing compared to a hungry, sick child.

steves 4:35 PM  

Go ahead and check out teabagger on urban dictionary ; )

I would agree that is how we roll here.

steves 4:37 PM  

As to the OP, I think it would depend on what the person is advocating.

Streak 10:58 AM  

I don't think it is hypocritical for a Tea Party officianado to run for government office, but am not sure that it is consistent for them to take a government job. One could argue, as Chris obviously has suggested, that an elected conservative could work to limit the size of government (though I am not convinced that is their approach at all, btw, as most of the TP people I have seen seem to be ok with government that helps them, just not the government that helps brown people).

It is absolutely hypocritical for them to take government disability or payments, and many of them do. And I think it is the height of hypocrisy for the Tea Partiers to bitch about extending healthcare while taking good federal healthcare subsidized by the rest of us.

And Bob is right, Tea Partiers introduced the whole "tea bagger" thing. They talked about "tea bagging" the White House, etc. Not our fault that they didn't realize the double meaning.

Post a Comment


Potential Drunks

Search This Blog

  © Blogger template On The Road by 2009

Back to TOP