other people have also mentioned that teabagging has another meaning

I'm afraid to click through to find out what it is.

here you go eve! i have top notch security on my computer. i have to with the links jane posts in the ptt! hehe...

teabagger

1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" 3) one who has a job or talent that is low in social status

i still don't see how "teabagging" relates to policy in the republicans minds!

I think it's obvious at this point that the wingnut teabaggers won't be satisfied until each and everyone of them delivers a donkey punch to America!

Why do the teabaggers want to donkey punch America?

Answer to all questions about teabaggers:

They are ingnorant and not very bright easily led sheeple.

Tea - BBAAAAAAAAAAAAH -gers

Regardless of how lame the intent of that sign was, I don't get how you guys play naive and act offended when some conservative uses an offensive slang toward you, and also how you guys act like they really want to tea bag you? It's an expression, like f- you, they don't actually want to do it to you. Plus, liberals call conservatives gross things like douche bags all the time. I don't see the difference. It's all worthless crassness from both sides.

Also, do you even know if the person holding up that sign was a Republican? I've assumed there were a lot of Libertarians at that event, as well (yes, both smart ones and dumb ones).

mmortal said:

I don't see the difference. It's all worthless crassness from both sides.

I agree that our name calling is sophomoric, however, it is a great frustration reliever. I'd also point out that if they stop acting like psychotic clowns I'll stop calling them that.

If you don't see a difference, try reading comments over at the Free Republic. Over there they are talking about armed rebellion and calling for death to all socialists.

I think there is a big difference. I think we look calm and mellow in a humorous name calling way. We aren't calling for armed insurrection and genocide here. They sound like enraged brown shirts over at the Free Fascist Republic. YMMV.

BTW, I answered your last comment on the Intellectual Violence thread.

I don't really recall anyone being offended by it. Just simply pointing out the mostly well known meaning of it and that these people are stupid enough to put it up on a sign as a real protest and expect to be taken seriously.

mmortal -

One more thing, the tea party nonsense is an astroturf production funded by Koch the oil drilling baron. The Sic Rantelli nonsense was part of this effort. Google 'Kock Santelli Astroturf' and you should get all of the pertinent articles.

The people attending these tea parties are sheeple being manipulated by a fabulously rich motherfucker that is using them for his own purposes. They all can blow me since they are too stupid for words. Baaaah Baaaah Baaaaaaaah

I hadn't heard about the Koch connection. If true, I think they wrongly deceived a lot of people, both smart ones and dumb ones. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that all the people attending the tea-party protests are just sheep, but how are either of us to really know?

I just browsed around as you suggested, and found that even people on the right don't want to be associated with the tea-parties because of the alleged astroturfing: http://www.thenextright.com/nomoreblatherdotcom/santelli-the-tea-parties-an-astroturf-campaign-from-the-koch-family

"If you don't see a difference, try reading comments over at the Free Republic. Over there they are talking about armed rebellion and calling for death to all socialists."

You might argue that the level of implied violence is in fact different, and I agree. I just meant I see no difference in the usefulness of either group's vitriol. Now, regarding armed rebellion, that is definitely over the top for now, but I would also argue that there is something useful in the American public being highly armed, just in case it is necessary down the road. What bothers a lot of people with shorter tempers and makes them want to fight are best described with questions like "How much further will our government go into debt before it becomes criminal and we have to police them ourselves?"

Regarding the calling for death to all socialists, that is also uncalled for, because I don't support calls for such general violence. There are interesting arguments I have heard for how the way our government is structured itself promotes unacceptable violence against its citizens, and therefore using violence against it and the supporters of these policies would simply be legitimate self defense. I don't think we have exhausted all non-violent solutions yet, though.

mmortal -

Thank you for your well reasoned reply.

We may have differences of opinion, but I welcome your inputs.

I'll try to cut back on frivolous name calling since I agree it doesn't help.

Here in California we are having many tax revolts over the Republicans breaking their "no tax" pledge to the voters. The most recent event this past weekend had 15,000 people there. The teabags used, at least in this case, are supposed to compare this situation to the Boston Tea Party, where they felt the taxes were unfair also. Califronia citizens were hit with the largest tax increase in the nations history...42 billion dollars worth, in this recession no less. That's the story on our teabags...against Republicans in CA.

mmortal posted:

[q]I don't see the difference. It's all worthless crassness from both sides.[/q]

WEll, the thing is it's by force, so, what I take it fer to mean is bullying, humiliating bullying.

The Rebooblicans are famous for bullying, it's so very TeddyR.' after all (feigned glibness)

ChiffonBreath,

One revelation that I had in the past regarding the use of force was that the government itself uses violence (by way of the barrel of a gun and the threat of imprisonment) to force us to pay taxes that many citizens never voted for. I do agree that the existence of some taxes can be positively argued, but once it reaches a certain point, it can also be argued that the bulk of the citizens didn't ask for it, and that they have a right to use force back in the name of self defense against the government and those who go along with all of it.

The Federal Reserve uses inflationary policies which are a hidden tax on everyone, but these hit the poor the hardest, because the poor can't keep up with the rich and some of the middle class, who at least have a chance at investing some of their savings to stay ahead of inflation.