Not at all. I'm just pointing out who started the term. It wasn't someone exactly supportive of the aims of Tea partiers. You're using supposition based on your own experience. That's not good data collection. You haven't provided any evidence to support your statement. I don't know your motives, I'm just saying that I actually know people who have attended Tea Parties, and according to them, they see the term "teabagger" as belittling. Bully for you. It appears Tea Partiers don't wish to take your advice. Then please tell us what "every sense of the word" means when the term teabagging is primarily know as a sex act? I wasn't the one who made the accusation. Back it up or give it up. It seems to me you're the one obsessed with having them "own" tea bagging. I just don't think it's too much to ask that people who have legitimate concerns and protest to state their case peacefully be treated with respect. Clearly, on that issue we disagree. Because the idea for those on the left is that the right is monolithic--that they're all gay bashing, bible thumping, gun toting, redneck racists. Calling them "teabaggers" is a way to mock them by equating what they're doing to a sex act primarily known as being done among gay men.
It's not, obviously. Some would say that the fact that these events are organized by FreedomWorks and get millions in free PR from Fox News does point to proof of astroturfing.
prove that he started it pot meet kettle sounds like...You're using supposition based on your own experience. I once read how that's not good data collection. too bad for them. Getting their panties in a bunch over minutia will only detract from their cause. us or you? Prior to the movement, it was as commonly used term as Shocker or Dirty Sanchez.... pretty much locker room mutterings from the outer fringe of the common vernacular. Propped up by Fox News, this movement has been in the crosshairs of national conversation for months now and they've taken over what people think of when they refer to any combination of the words tea & bag or tea & party. For the sake of avoiding redundancy broadcasters and the common man wants to have several different terms to refer to the movement as... I do much the same thing when I'm talking about a basketball player using their first or last name + nickname + initials alternately when speaking of them. There are several other much more explicit and commonly used sex act words where the word meaning takeover wouldn't have been possible (ex:cocksucker) but that wasn't an issue in this case for reasons stated above. What I was clearly implying, was that this heavily news cycled movement superseded this fringe word as far as a common reference. Words can and do change meanings and implications all the time and this is absolutely true in this case whether you acknowledge it or continue to take issue. you want me to provide links to radio broadcasts I hear when I'm driving between job sites? How do you miss key words like radio in a written discussion??? You do this so often it seems deliberate. as demonstrated umpteen times in various media feeds, these people have not been respectful. But please keep burying your head in the sand towards some of their ridiculous confrontational signs and rascist messages... doing so marginalizes whatever point it is you think you're making. to "own" a word or phrase is not some new concept. African Americans have done it with the N word, Gays have done it with various slighting words as well. Are you playing dumb or are you really not aware of this? Again with the Gay stuff and you know this how??? Your own experience? Great data collection method you're practicing. Again, here's an Urban Dictionary link to the term tea-bag. In the 7 possible definitions on the first page, notice how there isn't any mention of it being a gay act... definition #6 should be of particular interest for you. It quotes and dates someone from the movement referring to himself tea bagging Obama on a broadcast that appeared on Fox http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tea-Bag get a real issue STOMP
I fail to see how telling someone they bring more heat than light encourages people to apply logic...
LOL. When you disagree with someone, you never "agree to disagree". You attack the poster, the post, and the posters point of view. You try to belittle the person to make him look incompetent, and his post invalid. Its actually very funny. Some people take arguing on the internet a little too far.
Previously, I asked him to use his skill as an attorney to state an argument. Instead, he decided to attack me personally. Exactly how has he shown he's going to apply logic? I'm not the forum punching bag; when someone is being an ass I'll call them out on it.
I give every poster at least one chance to show me they have a clue about the issue at hand. A lot of times, I learn something in the process. However, when someone replies with talking points, or they go to great lengths to demonstrate their ignorance, I'll point that fact out to them. Search my moniker and "agree to disagree" and you'll find 42 instances of me saying it.
Here is how this place works - give respect and you get it, don't give it and you don't get it. That is why people respond to you the way they do. One would think that someone as smart as you always tell us you are would have figured that out by now, but then again, emotional intelligence is different, eh? Actually, I told you that posting pictures of Obama as Hitler is beyond the pale and you called that "playing the Jew card." So now it's time for one of your patented snide, change-the-subject, righteous, condescending retorts. People ignore you for a reason.
Thanks, sensei. So, by your reasoning, people calling me names is my fault? Terrific logic. Why should I mollycoddle people who don't bother to do their research? My advice is to get a thicker skin. But thanks for your opinion. Don't pretend you speak for the forum. Nice try, but not quite. The discussion was the stupid few who compared Obama to Hitler with signs. You said you were offended by those photos, yet you didn't share the same outrage with the photos comparing Bush to Hitler. So, your Jewry only extends across one half of the political spectrum. In other words, it has less to do with our religion and more to do with your political persuasion. That's what I mean by playing the Jew card. And that usage of our religion offends ME. Butthurt much? Once again, it seems that all your anger is simply to mask your inability to form a logical argument. Like I said, more heat than light. Let me give you a piece of advice someone once gave me in this forum: Here's how this place works--give respect and you'll get it.
you know what I love about these discussions? When I get tired of the bickering, I don't have to pay attention! Good luck all, and I still think Sarah Palin is not worthy of national politics.
Just because you asked me to analyze the Bush/Hitler comparison, does not mean I am required to, nor does it mean that my lack of following your orders means I am illogical. I just don't care what you want and annoying you is fun. The fact is, I had never noticed the Bush/Hitler thing, so really had no opinion of it, but you assumed I was not outraged. Again, your arrogance blinds you to a lot of what is being actually said.
