Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you've proved nobody wrong. guess you can't or don't read well.
" The first pejorative use of the term" means that the terms was in use by the teabaggers to identify themselves before 2007.
game over.
Enough With The Whining! 'Teabaggers' Actually Introduced The Term They Now Claim Is A Slur
Moreover, as Jay Nordlinger at National Review admits, the term "teabagger" was introduced to the political lexicon by Tea Party movement leaders:
The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.
Tommy Christopher at Mediaite has it about right:
The origin of the term is relevant in determining the relative size of the Tea Party’s violin. What wasn’t pointed out to Tapper is the fact that the Tea Partiers not only invented the term, they did so in order to inflict a similar double entendre onto the President, the Democrats, and liberals in general. Hence, it’s a violin so small, you need an electron microscope with a zoom lens to see it.
Now, they’re trying to re-cast the term as a slur, on a par with the “n-word,” hurtful to all the Tea Party members who are just ordinary moms, dads, sons, and daughters. The latter point has some resonance, but the former is ridiculous in the extreme.
In emails, protest signs, t-shirts, and online, early Tea Party literature urged protesters to “Tea Bag the White House,” and to “Tea-bag the liberal Dems before they tea-bag you.” The suggestion is that the metaphoric “tea-bags” be shoved in the mouths of the President, Democratic members of Congress, and even ordinary citizens who identify as liberal Democrats. The idea that they just didn’t know the term’s only (at that time) meaning is belied by the fact that they obviously knew it was negative (and non-consensual), since they didn’t want it done to them, and also because it only had one meaning.
It was only after MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and David Shuster, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, turned the tables on the term that Tea Partiers objected. They were perfectly satisfied to advocate the metaphoric mouth-rape of liberal men, women, and children, but had the nerve to become indignant when the insult boomeranged on them.
wrong dumbass the word was in use in 2007 ,two years before you claim falsely that leftists didn't recognize it as a part of the republican party.you've proved nobody wrong. guess you can't or don't read well.
" The first pejorative use of the term" means that the terms was in use by the teabaggers to identify themselves before 2007.
game over.
ROFL
According to most of you leftists, the Tea Party didn't even exist until 2009.
Remember, these foul enemies of the party that you attack only formed to protest your Messiah, because they are RACIST...
You proved yourself wrong, get over it.
I did and there is no contradiction.Enough With The Whining! 'Teabaggers' Actually Introduced The Term They Now Claim Is A Slur
Moreover, as Jay Nordlinger at National Review admits, the term "teabagger" was introduced to the political lexicon by Tea Party movement leaders:
The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.
Tommy Christopher at Mediaite has it about right:
The origin of the term is relevant in determining the relative size of the Tea Party’s violin. What wasn’t pointed out to Tapper is the fact that the Tea Partiers not only invented the term, they did so in order to inflict a similar double entendre onto the President, the Democrats, and liberals in general. Hence, it’s a violin so small, you need an electron microscope with a zoom lens to see it.
Now, they’re trying to re-cast the term as a slur, on a par with the “n-word,” hurtful to all the Tea Party members who are just ordinary moms, dads, sons, and daughters. The latter point has some resonance, but the former is ridiculous in the extreme.
In emails, protest signs, t-shirts, and online, early Tea Party literature urged protesters to “Tea Bag the White House,” and to “Tea-bag the liberal Dems before they tea-bag you.” The suggestion is that the metaphoric “tea-bags” be shoved in the mouths of the President, Democratic members of Congress, and even ordinary citizens who identify as liberal Democrats. The idea that they just didn’t know the term’s only (at that time) meaning is belied by the fact that they obviously knew it was negative (and non-consensual), since they didn’t want it done to them, and also because it only had one meaning.
It was only after MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and David Shuster, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, turned the tables on the term that Tea Partiers objected. They were perfectly satisfied to advocate the metaphoric mouth-rape of liberal men, women, and children, but had the nerve to become indignant when the insult boomeranged on them.
Yo bitch, YOU posted that
" The first pejorative use of the term" means that the terms was in use by the teabaggers to identify themselves before 2007."
That is a LONG time before the leftist fucks spewing the above shit fabricated it.
NOW you look pathetic.
Party above all with you.
wrong dumbass the word was in use in 2007 ,two years before you claim falsely that leftists didn't recognize it as a part of the republican party.
fun fact :In 2002, a Tea Party movement website was designed and published by the CSE at web address www.usteaparty.com, and stated "our US Tea Party is a national event, hosted continuously online and open to all Americans who feel our taxes are too high and the tax code is too complicated
wow! that was pointless ...wrong dumbass the word was in use in 2007 ,two years before you claim falsely that leftists didn't recognize it as a part of the republican party.
fun fact :In 2002, a Tea Party movement website was designed and published by the CSE at web address www.usteaparty.com, and stated "our US Tea Party is a national event, hosted continuously online and open to all Americans who feel our taxes are too high and the tax code is too complicated
I went to a Tea Party in 2006. Still, the majority of your leftist buddies shriek that it was a reaction to your messiah being made king.
I did and there is no contradiction.
you've already lost.
[what the fuck would you know about honesty ? lol!
you've again just proven you don't know jack shit about honesty.[what the fuck would you know about honesty ? lol!
A great deal.
I live by different standards.
You look as something and try to determine if it furthers the aims of the party. If it does, you claim it is true.
I look at something and try to determine if it is factually accurate.
You read something and look to see if it promotes the party. I read something and look to see if it promotes greater knowledge of facts.
I view truth as objective reality. You view the party as the only reality.
]you've again just proven you don't know jack shit about honesty.
all of you said about me is false.
it's your delusional thinking.
truth is subjective, fact is not nothing you post is accurate by any kind of measure.
the standard you live by is not different, it's the same as all delusional people share.
objectivity is a totally alien concept to you.
false! you a raving nut sack .]you've again just proven you don't know jack shit about honesty.
all of you said about me is false.
it's your delusional thinking.
truth is subjective, fact is not nothing you post is accurate by any kind of measure.
the standard you live by is not different, it's the same as all delusional people share.
objectivity is a totally alien concept to you.
This is a message board - you are what you post. What I posted about you is 100% accurate in view of what you post.
Dude, you're a hack.
false! you a raving nut sack .
that fact proves it's impossible for you to be accurate honest or objective.
A TV celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field because The People are tired of Career Politicians and their Milquetoast Policies and Tactics.That does not address the counterpoint to your 'weak field' remark....Biden is unbeatable. All that remains is that the Democrats wake up to that fact.
But, as long as you're diverting the conversation away from that counterpoint...
If Old Uncle Joe was 'unbeatable', Barack Hussein Obama would not be President.
A tv celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field. What more evidence do you need that the field is weak?
A TV celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field because The People are tired of Career Politicians and their Milquetoast Policies and Tactics.That does not address the counterpoint to your 'weak field' remark....Biden is unbeatable. All that remains is that the Democrats wake up to that fact.
But, as long as you're diverting the conversation away from that counterpoint...
If Old Uncle Joe was 'unbeatable', Barack Hussein Obama would not be President.
A tv celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field. What more evidence do you need that the field is weak?
If a TV celebrity and con man appeared on the Dem side, promising to do away with Business-As-Usual, Shrillary, Bernie and Uncle Joe would be in single digits, too.
This is the Season of the Washington Outsider, in case you hadn't noticed yet.
Let's put it to the test, and find out.A TV celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field because The People are tired of Career Politicians and their Milquetoast Policies and Tactics.That does not address the counterpoint to your 'weak field' remark....Biden is unbeatable. All that remains is that the Democrats wake up to that fact.
But, as long as you're diverting the conversation away from that counterpoint...
If Old Uncle Joe was 'unbeatable', Barack Hussein Obama would not be President.
A tv celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field. What more evidence do you need that the field is weak?
If a TV celebrity and con man appeared on the Dem side, promising to do away with Business-As-Usual, Shrillary, Bernie and Uncle Joe would be in single digits, too.
This is the Season of the Washington Outsider, in case you hadn't noticed yet.
Well no. They wouldn't.
Trump appeals to a very small target audience, angry older Christian white males. And that's about it.
He may take the GOP nomination but he was fail in the general.
what's Ironic here is you, a proven nut job ,fascist, liar etc. lecturing anybody on reality ,another subject you have no clue aboutfalse! you a raving nut sack .
that fact proves it's impossible for you to be accurate honest or objective.
LOL
Irony alert.
I'm vastly more objective than you, and always honest. The problem you have is that your idea of what "truth" is doesn't mesh with reality. To you I am dishonest because I speak against the party, and "truth" is only that which serves the party. To me I am honest because what I claim is factually accurate. I realize that you have no interest in facts, only in serving the party. But out here with the rational folk, facts are the basis of honesty and truth.
You wouldn't understand.
Let's put it to the test, and find out.A TV celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field because The People are tired of Career Politicians and their Milquetoast Policies and Tactics.That does not address the counterpoint to your 'weak field' remark....Biden is unbeatable. All that remains is that the Democrats wake up to that fact.
But, as long as you're diverting the conversation away from that counterpoint...
If Old Uncle Joe was 'unbeatable', Barack Hussein Obama would not be President.
A tv celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field. What more evidence do you need that the field is weak?
If a TV celebrity and con man appeared on the Dem side, promising to do away with Business-As-Usual, Shrillary, Bernie and Uncle Joe would be in single digits, too.
This is the Season of the Washington Outsider, in case you hadn't noticed yet.
Well no. They wouldn't.
Trump appeals to a very small target audience, angry older Christian white males. And that's about it.
He may take the GOP nomination but he was fail in the general.
only temporarily the only thing that's sure is nothing is sure.A TV celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field because The People are tired of Career Politicians and their Milquetoast Policies and Tactics.That does not address the counterpoint to your 'weak field' remark....Biden is unbeatable. All that remains is that the Democrats wake up to that fact.
But, as long as you're diverting the conversation away from that counterpoint...
If Old Uncle Joe was 'unbeatable', Barack Hussein Obama would not be President.
A tv celebrity and con man is leading the GOP field. What more evidence do you need that the field is weak?
If a TV celebrity and con man appeared on the Dem side, promising to do away with Business-As-Usual, Shrillary, Bernie and Uncle Joe would be in single digits, too.
This is the Season of the Washington Outsider, in case you hadn't noticed yet.
