Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I believe you are off base here. Although I cannot find one specific starting point for the term, the first time I heard them referred to as teabaggers was when Janeane Garofalo pretty much called the entire movement out as racist (using the word "redneck" ironically, sort of makes my earlier point about liberal hypocrisy). Although you may be correct in a sense (the earliest reference I could find was a protest in Feb and a sign that says "Teabag the liberal Dems before they teabag you"), I don't believe they coined the term. The name they came up with, officially anyway, was the TEA (taxed enough already) Party Patriots. Every instance of the exact wording of "teabagger" that I have seen or heard has been used as a derogatory term by the left and the media to belittle the movement.
Regardless, I find it juvenile to use the term. Gotta give it to the left though, right out of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". Following the game plan to a "T".
Interesting bit of revisionist history. The Tea Baggers proudly call themselves Tea Baggers. It was a reference to the anarchy originated in the Boston Tea Party.
Location: central, between Pepe's Tacos and Roberto's
2,086 posts, read 6,845,674 times
Reputation: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by las vegas drunk
The tea partyer's are downright dangerous. To be honest they scare me.
Of course you do. The only patriotic dissent is leftist dissent. Never mind that very few, if any, instances of violence have been linked to the TEA Party movement, quite unlike the left which has shown no hesitation to get violent. Were you aware of the death threats that the R congressmen have been getting? The black man that was attacked by SEIU members at a town hall meeting? The health care reform supporter that bit the protester's finger off? The radio tower in WA that was blown up by leftists? Do you know who the ELF are and what they stand for? What about the G20 summit in Pittsburgh? The Weather Underground Organization? What about the endless hung and burned effigy's of GW and calls for his death? Were they ok? Did those leftists scare you? Did you feel that they were "downright dangerous"?
BTW, did you know that anti-war protesters in SF and LA are now displaying signs with Obama as Hitler on them? Are they racist and dangerous as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
There is a Salon article that claims to attempt to find the origin. It agrees with you that it tends to be a left thing. It also claims however that it was tea party sign that started the whole thing.."Teabag a liberal before they teabag you" which came up in a photo from a February 2009 Tea Party.
So you got an older, white, conservative and angry group. Are they relevant?
I did mention the sign at the Feb protest. Still a bit of a cry from claiming the specific name of teabagger and doing so proudly. I would say the fact that Salon tends to agree with me pretty much backs up my point, as I can guarantee you that we won't agree on much else if anything.
Regarding the links, I watched a bit of Maddow's piece. Seemed objective enough with regards to the origins of the movement, although I still think that the term "teabaggers" is completely juvenile. As such, I simply cannot take anyone that uses that term to describe the movement in a derogatory fashion seriously. Still can't and won't call myself a big "L" Libertarian, and I do agree with her that the Republican mainstream is trying to tap into the dissatisfaction and trying to claim libertarian (aka classic liberal) ideas as their own.
As far as the Smith column, I might place more credence in what he writes were he not so obviously biased. It seems to me that the entire purpose of his being there was to poke as much fun at the movement as possible. FWIW, he is 100% wrong about the Jesus bit. The liberals tend to see this as a white, conservative, Christian movement. They couldn't be further from the truth and given the dismal approval numbers of those in DC, I would venture to say that it is much more than the white conservatives that are angry in this country. There are quite a few Atheists and Agnostics involved in the movement, and frankly I'm sure that the liberals here would be surprised to find out how many "conservatives", at least on the firearms forum I am on, simply don't care about religion or social or moral "issues" such as decriminalization of marijuana or gay marriage. Most "conservatives" that I know and speak to just want to be left alone, and feel that we should be able to do as we please, so long as what we choose to do does not infringe on anyone else's rights.
It just so happens that many "conservatives" I know also happen to believe very strongly in military non-interventionism. If people were interested at all in finding any common ground, they would find that it is right there. I suppose it is easier or funner to just pick a side and rail on the other side though. Who cares what's in the bill, as long as you are on the winning side then you can feel good knowing that you did the *right* thing, regardless of how much damage it actually does.
(I don't mean "you" personally olecapt, speaking generally.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazz
Interesting bit of revisionist history. The Tea Baggers proudly call themselves Tea Baggers. It was a reference to the anarchy originated in the Boston Tea Party.
Revisionist history? I am aware of what the TEA Party was referencing, as well as what the acronym TEA stood for as referenced in my post. If you can find any anecdotal evidence to back up your claims and dispute mine, I would love to see it and would immediately recant. Until then, I believe I have put forth more to back up my assertions than you have and as such feel that my argument is much more credible than yours.
I do find it ironic that you would refer to the Boston Tea Party as "anarchy". I think I would use the term "civil disobedience". You know, protest? Be careful, your statism is showing Torie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazz
Especially when the go to Sarah Palin's official website where they are enjoined to "Target" and "Reload."
Right. So I suppose when someone says "battleground state" they are, in fact, inciting violence? Look, I am no Republican apologist and I surely wouldn't be caught dead at any event where Palin spoke. I watched some of her speech from Searchlight on Saturday and it was simply painful to watch. Combine that with the fact that regardless of what she says, her actions continue to point to her being a Republican shill and I can say with sincerity that I will have no part of the TEA Party. It may have started out as a grassroots movement, but the Republicans have surely co-opted it and made it their own.
I'm simply tired of the political rhetoric and propaganda, from both sides of the aisle, and will call out the BS as objectively as possible whenever I see it, whether liberal or conservative.
Every instance of the exact wording of "teabagger" that I have seen or heard has been used as a derogatory term by the left and the media to belittle the movement.
Oh, c'mon now. You can even buy buttons at tea party rallies that say "PROUD TO BE A TEABAGGER."
And while it is true that the liberal media and commedians have had a field day with this term, it is an incontrovertible fact that the term was originated by the tea partiers themselves and then co-opted by the Republicans and Fox News talking heads for Tax Day last year before they finally got wind of the double entendre.
Location: central, between Pepe's Tacos and Roberto's
2,086 posts, read 6,845,674 times
Reputation: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
There is a Salon article that claims to attempt to find the origin. It agrees with you that it tends to be a left thing. It also claims however that it was tea party sign that started the whole thing.."Teabag a liberal before they teabag you" which came up in a photo from a February 2009 Tea Party.
So you got an older, white, conservative and angry group. Are they relevant?
I meant to address this last night and completely forgot. I do feel that they are relevant, but not in the same manner as they used to be. When this movement first started, it was people from all walks of life and all political affiliations protesting things like the bank bailouts and stimulus package (Republican and Democrat pieces of legislation, respectively). As I said before, it (along with libertarian ideals) has been coopted by the Republican party. The message of the Republican party for the last couple of decades has been coming from the religious right mainly, and now all of a sudden they are for smaller government and more personal liberty while they still defend the Patriot Act, Medicare Part D, many of them still support the stimulus or at least the money their constituents get from it, and it has been well documented that Republican lawmakers are now going home and making speeches about amendments in the health care bill that they introduced, even though they voted against the bill. Not to mention the fact that you now have actual Tea Party candidates starting their push for DC. The Tea Party was never supposed to be another political party for the same talking heads to run on. It was simply supposed to be a wake up call for those on the Hill so they would realize what their policies are doing now and what the short and long term ramifications of their big government policy would be.
So I would again say that yes, they are still relevant but not in the way that they were before unfortunately.
On another note, I am so tired of hearing about how the majority makeup of the Tea Party protests is angry, old, white conservatives. The cries of racism take away from the discussion. They are propaganda in a war of words and information. See the MSNBC story about the black gentleman with his AR-15 slung (not brandished) at the protest in AZ. MSNBC did NOT show this mans face and used the shot of his weapon from the back to try and push a story of racism and hatred. Sort of blew up in their face though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
Oh, c'mon now. You can even buy buttons at tea party rallies that say "PROUD TO BE A TEABAGGER."
And while it is true that the liberal media and commedians have had a field day with this term, it is an incontrovertible fact that the term was originated by the tea partiers themselves and then co-opted by the Republicans and Fox News talking heads for Tax Day last year before they finally got wind of the double entendre.
Coopting and originating are two entirely different things. You have yet to provide proof that the Tea Party originated the term teabagger as fact. Like olecapt, you link to an obviously biased and extremely partisan article to prove your point and fail. Not that I take much of what you say seriously anyway, based on your most recent thread.
Regarding the coopting of the term, it's not the first instance that a group of people has taken a derogatory term and made it their own. I would never equate it to civil rights, and I don't necessarily like the term even used by African Americans but they took the N word and coopted it, transforming it from a derogatory term (although it can definitely still be used in that manner) and turning it into a term of endearment in their circles.
Before anyone jumps on the analogy, I am aware that it is very different and as I said before I am not really trying to compare or equate the two. Just pointing out that sometimes when a group of people tries to demonize and marginalize a movement with use of language, often times you will see the movement embrace said language to minimalize the effect of the attacks. I have seen buttons, shirts, and banners that say things like "Right Wing Extremist" worn by people that are obviously no such thing, because of what DHS secratary Napalitano said in her domestic terrorism report last year. That's my point.
FWIW, I don't understand how one can think that a movement with millions of people involved cannot be aware of the innuendo involved with the derogatory term. Perhaps FOX News and the Repubs were not (I doubt that though as well), but seeing that this started as a grass roots libertarian movement I would say that their adaptation of it is no different than MSNBC, the DNC, or congressional Democrats using the term.
sorry Daddy but in this case you are doing pirouettes on very thin ice.
It is reasonably clear that the "tea bag" thing was initiated by the Tea Party including the first known use of the verb form. Tea bags all over hats and clothing and sent to representatives in Congress.
That various left leaning bloggers and writers had a field day does not impact the origination by the Tea Party. It also lead to some of the better puns and double entendres of our time.
It is white, older and conservative...libertarian and Independent American Party lead the way. I also believe it has large participation by the theo-conservatives. Sure they have a few token agnostics and atheists...but don't expect pro-choice as a policy statement.
It has a really nasty edge to it. The attack on Reid for example. Reid is a very conservative gun loving democrat. Perhaps the most compatible with the Tea Party of any Democrat in the US legislature...yet he remains the primary target. Message? Bunch of people who would never vote for Reid ever carrying water for the Repubs. And they may well be successful....actually a terrible outcome for Nevada.
Location: central, between Pepe's Tacos and Roberto's
2,086 posts, read 6,845,674 times
Reputation: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
sorry Daddy but in this case you are doing pirouettes on very thin ice.
It is reasonably clear that the "tea bag" thing was initiated by the Tea Party including the first known use of the verb form. Tea bags all over hats and clothing and sent to representatives in Congress.
That various left leaning bloggers and writers had a field day does not impact the origination by the Tea Party. It also lead to some of the better puns and double entendres of our time.
I'm pretty sure that I have conceded on multiple occasions in this discussion the origination of the tea bag reference. My contention is that the origination of the actual term "teabagger" is a bit different and initiated wholly by the left as an attempt to marginalize. Am I arguing semantics at this point? Maybe, but I just happen to believe that A is A. Unless someone from the Tea Party came out and called them self a "teabagger" before the mass of pejoratives from the left, my contention stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
It is white, older and conservative...libertarian and Independent American Party lead the way. I also believe it has large participation by the theo-conservatives. Sure they have a few token agnostics and atheists...but don't expect pro-choice as a policy statement.
I wholeheartedly disagree. The movement started as a bipartisan movement against out of control spending and private industry bailouts. I do admit that said theo-conservatives have been actively infiltrating and co-opting the movement, but for the most part everyone I have met who has been involved in the Tea Party in any way has been majority libertarian (which you seem to keep confusing with Libertarian). Now, I'm not sure if you understand what libertarians stand for but I assure you that pro-life as a policy statement is in direct conflict with said political ideology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
It has a really nasty edge to it. The attack on Reid for example. Reid is a very conservative gun loving democrat. Perhaps the most compatible with the Tea Party of any Democrat in the US legislature...yet he remains the primary target. Message? Bunch of people who would never vote for Reid ever carrying water for the Repubs. And they may well be successful....actually a terrible outcome for Nevada.
With all due respect Jim, you must be off your meds. Reid is conservative? Just because he is 2A friendly (and I will admit that he has been a friend to RKBA advocates) does NOT make him conservative. As I mentioned before, this movement (at least the initial intent) is against big government and crony capitalism. I'm sure that Reid's record, particularly as of late, does not fall in line with that philosophy. I also don't agree that Reid's dismissal will be terrible for NV. What exactly has he done as of late that is in the state's best interest as Senate Majority Leader? Seems to me like he is beholden to his party, regardless of the effect it has on his state. An argument for the repeal of the 17th amendment perhaps? I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that. And what of these "attacks" that have a nasty edge to them? I've yet to hear him being attacked on anything other than his political stance. Of course the politics haven't really begun yet, and this election may very well get nasty on both sides.
All that said, I am not going to argue this anymore. It's fairly obvious that we will not make any headway on this discussion as it has devolved into an argument of semantics and non-issues. My initial intent was to point out that pejorative talking points and party affiliate reaction-ism was not productive. It almost reminds me of middle school cliques. The meat of the matter is irrelevant, as long as you are on the winning side.
The date will be Friday, April 30 at 9PM (the start of happy hour). Everyone is invited, yes even the LVD haters, just be nice. If you are interested, post up here so I have an idea of how many people are going.
We have a good 100 or so locals who are consistently post here. Only 4 members wanted to go. Obviously this is now canceled, and I am not going to be there regardless.
We have a good 100 or so locals who are consistently post here. Only 4 members wanted to go. Obviously this is now canceled, and I am not going to be there regardless.
I would come by and buy you a beer or two if I did not have to attend the daily salt grind that starts at midnight for me.
Like olecapt, you link to an obviously biased and extremely partisan article to prove your point and fail.
Biased and extremely partisan? Seriously? You mean like this statement from the author of the article:
"Is there some way to talk about people who wave around tea bags to make political points without mentioning the tea bags? Generally, I think there is, and I go to some lengths not to make crude jokes when I write about the Tea Party movement."
Yeah, I see how you can be so dismissive of him based on his position to treat the Tea Party movement with respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddys///M3
Not that I take much of what you say seriously anyway, based on your most recent thread.
Ooh, that cut me to the quick. Does that mean that you are one of the people who voted for Red Lobster as best seafood restaurant? C'mon you can tell us! It was you who voted multiple times for them wasn't it?
Speak up! Confession is good for the soul. (Or should that be sole since we're discussing seafood?)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Everyone is invited, yes even the LVD haters
, just be nice.
If you are interested, post up here so I have an idea of how many people are going.
