Teabaggers

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 6:11 PM GMT
    So every time I read a forum with that word in it, the first thing I think of is scrotum in the mouth... but I get the impression thats not what it means here... sorry Im a moron when it comes to US politics... what does this whole teabagging/teabagging party/tea party reference mean?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 6:14 PM GMT
    It´s the lunatic fringe of the right in American politics, which claims to be libertarian but is actually socially conservative to a truly astounding extent. Many of the candidates wanted to ban abortion in ALL cases (including rape and incest), and basically turn American into a theocracy like Iran. You can spot a Teabagger because they whine on and on about "Freedom". Much of their funding comes from billionaires. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

    There is a racist undertone which they are VERY sensitive about. If the GOP follows that direction then political debate in the USA will cease.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 6:14 PM GMT
    It is a vulgar, classless way that some of the more extreme liberals in the US refer to the tea party groups. The guys who use the term justify it by claiming some members used the term when referring to themselves before realizing its profane definition.

    Nevertheless, you will find most people who have some self-respect do not use the term, but the more radical, bitter liberals take delight in using it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 8:47 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidIt is a vulgar, classless way that some of the more extreme liberals in the US refer to the tea party groups. The guys who use the term justify it by claiming some members used the term when referring to themselves before realizing its profane definition.

    Nevertheless, you will find most people who have some self-respect do not use the term, but the more radical, bitter liberals take delight in using it.


    wahmbulance.jpg?1252544974
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 9:22 PM GMT
    Lostboy said It´s the lunatic fringe of the right in American politics, which claims to be libertarian but is actually socially conservative to a truly astounding extent. Many of the candidates wanted to ban abortion in ALL cases (including rape and incest), and basically turn American into a theocracy like Iran. You can spot a Teabagger because they whine on and on about "Freedom". Much of their funding comes from billionaires. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

    There is a racist undertone which they are VERY sensitive about. If the GOP follows that direction then political debate in the USA will cease.



    Please come back and give us a description when you have a clue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 10:23 PM GMT
    we of the Tea Party (or if one must stoop to using the term.. "teabaggers") are primarily for smaller government, less socialism and social policy experimentation, and lower taxes all around.

    There are some social conservatives in the mix, but just as many more who are indifferent as to who is sleeping with whom.
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Nov 03, 2010 10:26 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidwe of the Tea Party (or if one must stoop to using the term.. "teabaggers") are primarily for smaller government, less socialism and social policy experimentation, and lower taxes all around.

    There are some social conservatives in the mix, but just as many more who are indifferent as to who is sleeping with whom.


    This is the one you should listen to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 10:42 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidwe of the Tea Party (or if one must stoop to using the term.. "teabaggers") are primarily for smaller government, less socialism and social policy experimentation, and lower taxes all around.

    There are some social conservatives in the mix, but just as many more who are indifferent as to who is sleeping with whom.


    So you're in favor of sharp cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Defence and Social Security, right? Cuts larger than the tax cuts you're proposing---so that the national debt is reduced too, right?

    I think a legitimate criticism of the Tea Party is intellectual incoherence when it comes to actually specifying what exactly it's going to cut.

    As we see in California, people love the government to do things [that's what all those ballot propositions enable them to do] but very much resent paying for them [which is why the state is a basket case].

    I am disinclined to believe the empty rhetoric of "less government, less socialism, lower taxes"---which is, I might add, a dramatic experiment in social policy---unless it is accompanied by detailed costing.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 10:46 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidwe of the Tea Party (or if one must stoop to using the term.. "teabaggers") are primarily for smaller government, less socialism and social policy experimentation, and lower taxes all around.

    There are some social conservatives in the mix, but just as many more who are indifferent as to who is sleeping with whom.


    +1
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Nov 03, 2010 10:53 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidIt is a vulgar, classless way that some of the more extreme liberals in the US refer to the tea party groups. The guys who use the term justify it by claiming some members used the term when referring to themselves before realizing its profane definition.

    Nevertheless, you will find most people who have some self-respect do not use the term, but the more radical, bitter liberals take delight in using it.


    It's more than just a claim, socalfitness. You can see the posters and read the quotes - they identified (or continue to identify) themselves as teabaggers, and even used teabag as a verb.

    And let's not get self-righteous, as you and other conservatives use the term "Obamacare" to refer to the Health Care Reform bill.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 11:27 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    alphatrigger saidwe of the Tea Party (or if one must stoop to using the term.. "teabaggers") are primarily for smaller government, less socialism and social policy experimentation, and lower taxes all around.

    There are some social conservatives in the mix, but just as many more who are indifferent as to who is sleeping with whom.


    So you're in favor of sharp cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Defence and Social Security, right? Cuts larger than the tax cuts you're proposing---so that the national debt is reduced too, right?

    I think a legitimate criticism of the Tea Party is intellectual incoherence when it comes to actually specifying what exactly it's going to cut.

    As we see in California, people love the government to do things [that's what all those ballot propositions enable them to do] but very much resent paying for them [which is why the state is a basket case].

    I am disinclined to believe the empty rhetoric of "less government, less socialism, lower taxes"---which is, I might add, a dramatic experiment in social policy---unless it is accompanied by detailed costing.


    Not a single Republican has actually admitted to what they plan on cutting. They have been asked directly before but have dodged the question. So it could literally be everything and everything. However they definitely won't be cutting the defense budget (they are scarred silly of Iran) and have said they won't be cutting benefits for veterans/seniors. Time will only tell if they stick to their word.

    Methinks the cuts will come in the unemployment, food stamps, welfare, education areas. Although the Republicans don't even have that much power because everything has to pass by both the Senate and the President. They don't even have the power to overturn the health care bill but they will try to strip of funding.

    socalfitness saidIt is a vulgar, classless way that some of the more extreme liberals in the US refer to the tea party groups. The guys who use the term justify it by claiming some members used the term when referring to themselves before realizing its profane definition.

    Nevertheless, you will find most people who have some self-respect do not use the term, but the more radical, bitter liberals take delight in using it.


    Yes its okay to call the leader of the country a Muslim, a fascist, a socialist, a communist, Hitler, Marxist, and make bigiot/racial comparisons but its not okay to say "Teabaggers", icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 11:45 PM GMT
    creature said
    socalfitness saidIt is a vulgar, classless way that some of the more extreme liberals in the US refer to the tea party groups. The guys who use the term justify it by claiming some members used the term when referring to themselves before realizing its profane definition.

    Nevertheless, you will find most people who have some self-respect do not use the term, but the more radical, bitter liberals take delight in using it.


    It's more than just a claim, socalfitness. You can see the posters and read the quotes - they identified (or continue to identify) themselves as teabaggers, and even used teabag as a verb.

    And let's not get self-righteous, as you and other conservatives use the term "Obamacare" to refer to the Health Care Reform bill.


    And, in case you're wondering, Socal is the supreme hypocrite of RJ, whose stunning disregard for anything approaching a fact is only exceeded by his idol worship of the younger, more attractive right wingers on here. He follows them around like a puppy and then attacks anyone (chiefly me) who disagrees with him. Sad, really.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 11:51 PM GMT
    creature said
    socalfitness saidIt is a vulgar, classless way that some of the more extreme liberals in the US refer to the tea party groups. The guys who use the term justify it by claiming some members used the term when referring to themselves before realizing its profane definition.

    Nevertheless, you will find most people who have some self-respect do not use the term, but the more radical, bitter liberals take delight in using it.


    It's more than just a claim, socalfitness. You can see the posters and read the quotes - they identified (or continue to identify) themselves as teabaggers, and even used teabag as a verb.

    And let's not get self-righteous, as you and other conservatives use the term "Obamacare" to refer to the Health Care Reform bill.

    I wonder if those posters seen on MSNBC are cherry picked. I don't see them on the outlets I watch, but whatever.

    I think using the term "Obamacare" is different because it is not profane, but then more people are saying it is! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 11:55 PM GMT
    Posiden said
    TigerTim said
    alphatrigger saidwe of the Tea Party (or if one must stoop to using the term.. "teabaggers") are primarily for smaller government, less socialism and social policy experimentation, and lower taxes all around.

    There are some social conservatives in the mix, but just as many more who are indifferent as to who is sleeping with whom.


    So you're in favor of sharp cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Defence and Social Security, right? Cuts larger than the tax cuts you're proposing---so that the national debt is reduced too, right?

    I think a legitimate criticism of the Tea Party is intellectual incoherence when it comes to actually specifying what exactly it's going to cut.

    As we see in California, people love the government to do things [that's what all those ballot propositions enable them to do] but very much resent paying for them [which is why the state is a basket case].

    I am disinclined to believe the empty rhetoric of "less government, less socialism, lower taxes"---which is, I might add, a dramatic experiment in social policy---unless it is accompanied by detailed costing.


    Not a single Republican has actually admitted to what they plan on cutting. They have been asked directly before but have dodged the question. So it could literally be everything and everything. However they definitely won't be cutting the defense budget (they are scarred silly of Iran) and have said they won't be cutting benefits for veterans/seniors. Time will only tell if they stick to their word.

    Methinks the cuts will come in the unemployment, food stamps, welfare, education areas. Although the Republicans don't even have that much power because everything has to pass by both the Senate and the President. They don't even have the power to overturn the health care bill but they will try to strip of funding.

    socalfitness saidIt is a vulgar, classless way that some of the more extreme liberals in the US refer to the tea party groups. The guys who use the term justify it by claiming some members used the term when referring to themselves before realizing its profane definition.

    Nevertheless, you will find most people who have some self-respect do not use the term, but the more radical, bitter liberals take delight in using it.


    Yes its okay to call the leader of the country a Muslim, a fascist, a socialist, a communist, Hitler, Marxist, and make bigiot/racial comparisons but its not okay to say "Teabaggers", icon_rolleyes.gif


    Please... The only thing they want to cut are "entitlements". Bush the lesser was recently quoted as saying his biggest regret was not privatizing Social Security. So, in addition to wanting to violate union pension contracts, gambling folks 401ks (which conservatives said were "safe!") and wanting to violate the social contract between worker and company, he also thinks we should entrust our retirement to the same corporate asshats who brought you the economic crisis of 2008.

    But, they will cut nothing and, now that they actually have to govern, will prove that they have no ideas except rewarding their corporate masters. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 11:56 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    creature said
    socalfitness saidIt is a vulgar, classless way that some of the more extreme liberals in the US refer to the tea party groups. The guys who use the term justify it by claiming some members used the term when referring to themselves before realizing its profane definition.

    Nevertheless, you will find most people who have some self-respect do not use the term, but the more radical, bitter liberals take delight in using it.


    It's more than just a claim, socalfitness. You can see the posters and read the quotes - they identified (or continue to identify) themselves as teabaggers, and even used teabag as a verb.

    And let's not get self-righteous, as you and other conservatives use the term "Obamacare" to refer to the Health Care Reform bill.


    And, in case you're wondering, Socal is the supreme hypocrite of RJ, whose stunning disregard for anything approaching a fact is only exceeded by his idol worship of the younger, more attractive right wingers on here. He follows them around like a puppy and then attacks anyone (chiefly me) who disagrees with him. Sad, really.

    A separate message just for me. What a cutie! The election must have really upset him and he does not appear to be coping well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 12:06 AM GMT
    In any case, as has been mentioned above, the term "tea bagger" was first used innocent of its other meaning by tea party activists themselves.

    There has of course been much mirth at this. I think its advisable to avoid pejorative labels generally, but since it seems the Tea Party has deliberately sought to be a caricature of the right it is difficult to know whether "tea bagger" is in fact pejorative or not.

    "Tea Party supporter" is a better term. Supporter of what exactly, though, is a question I wish one of them would seriously answer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 12:13 AM GMT
    TigerTim saidIn any case, as has been mentioned above, the term "tea bagger" was first used innocent of its other meaning by tea party activists themselves.

    There has of course been much mirth at this. I think its advisable to avoid pejorative labels generally, but since it seems the Tea Party has deliberately sought to be a caricature of the right it is difficult to know whether "tea bagger" is in fact pejorative or not.

    "Tea Party supporter" is a better term. Supporter of what exactly, though, is a question I wish one of them would seriously answer.


    Amen to that, brother.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 12:23 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TigerTim saidIn any case, as has been mentioned above, the term "tea bagger" was first used innocent of its other meaning by tea party activists themselves.

    There has of course been much mirth at this. I think its advisable to avoid pejorative labels generally, but since it seems the Tea Party has deliberately sought to be a caricature of the right it is difficult to know whether "tea bagger" is in fact pejorative or not.

    "Tea Party supporter" is a better term. Supporter of what exactly, though, is a question I wish one of them would seriously answer.



    Oh, I guess you must have missed this:

    The Contract from America

    We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.
    Individual Liberty

    Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.
    Limited Government

    The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.
    Economic Freedom

    The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

    1. Protect the Constitution

    Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)


    2. Reject Cap & Trade

    Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)


    3. Demand a Balanced Budget

    Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)


    4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

    Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)


    5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

    Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)


    6. End Runaway Government Spending

    Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)


    7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

    Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)


    8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

    Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)


    9. Stop the Pork

    Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)


    10. Stop the Tax Hikes

    Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

    http://www.thecontract.org/


    SB - That's a series of platitudes, not legislation or policy.

    You realize that not a single part of the of Gingrich's Contract With (On?) America ever made it into law, right? None of this will either, thankfully.

    Oh, and #3 is the law in California, which is why that state is crippled.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 04, 2010 2:35 AM GMT
    The Teabagger Republicans are the 21st century Nazis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 2:35 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    So you're in favor of sharp cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Defence and Social Security, right? Cuts larger than the tax cuts you're proposing---so that the national debt is reduced too, right?



    Absolutely. We may disagree on how much needs to be cut from what particular parts of the budget.... and given a wider mandate, I'm certain that there would be plenty of creative sausage making.

    I for one would seek broad cuts on the first three, and going hands-off on Social Security (while seeking a means to either privatise it outright, or convert it into a tightly regulated, VOLUNTARY personal investment account, leveraged against a portfolio that would mirror an existing plan the Federal government provides for the military and federal civil service employees, the Thrift Savings Plan.

    The TSP functions as an additional benefit on top of any service pension or FERS (Federal Employee Retirement System).

    As for Medicaid/Medicare, these need to be reined in, as do medical costs in general; healthier living options for the younger should be encouraged. Allowing for more cross-state-border competition would help drive prices own.

    And the military? Ideally, cutting back the standing forces to about 750,000 personnel between all services, with a drastically reduced Army set to patrolling our borders, a mothballing of about half our carrier fleet (starting with the oldest CVNs in the inventory) and a mild expansion of our nuclear sub fleets and ASW (anti-sub) surface fleets, and a re-aligning of the USAF more towards cyber-warfare and counter-counter satellite operations, standing down some of the air mobility missions (mostly supporting deployments) and focusing our ability to deliver global reach right from the US, we could save substantial money.

    If we can cut back from having to secure the Middle East and contain Iran (and to a lesser extent, Israel and her neighbours) we'd be far better off - we could keep our troops at home, our reduced Navy patrolling sea lanes of strategic interest, and still provide a deterrent to potential Chinese and Russian naval expansionism.

    A mixed-solution approach (methane clathrate harvesting, oil-producing algae farming, solar convection towers in the desert, sea-based hydroelectric production... and harvesting shale oil and coal to oil conversion - guess who has the most shale and coal reserves - and we could easily scale back our dependence on M.E. oil.

    Also, since Iran and North Korea will very shortly (within the next Presidential election cycle or two) have ICBM nuclear capability. a one-legged if not still very dangerous threat, but still not enough to offset a full (or even a substantial partial) retaliatory nuclear response from the US, to say nothing of the stability of a nuclear triad.

    Force reductions (for my taste) would likely see most base closures overseas, primarily in Europe (methinks it is time the Bundeswehr and Armées Françaises resumed primary interest in the defence of the Continent), as well as getting completely out of Southwest Asia.

    It might be best to maintain a US-defence presence (albeit reduced from current levels) in South Korea and Japan, unless the Japanese can stand up a larger army without destabilising relations with either Korea or China, and likewise until deeper trust can be built with the Chinese regarding Japan and Taiwan.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 2:36 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidThe Teabagger Republicans are the 21st century Nazis.


    dang it, that's why the folks at the campaign HQ gave me funny looks. I must have left my brown shirt and armband on the nightstand again... icon_rolleyes.gif

    Godwin Epic Fail.