What is it about the Tea Party (2009) that you and others here find objectionable?

Since prompting didn’t elicit it, then I was thinking that, yes. But if you say I have that wrong, then naturally I accept your statement because you know what you know a lot better than I know what you know.

Children never cease to amaze me: they are so proud of their elementary knowledge that they assume no one else shares it.

Greg, I accorded you the respect of assuming that you understood the connection with the Tea Party and so did not restate the obvious. I expected the same respect from you. I made a mistake.

Now, for all the liberal geniuses, HERE IS A PARAGRAPH FROM WIKI:

The name “Tea Party” is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, and the protests have sought to evoke images, slogans, and themes from the American Revolution.[8][9][10] The letters T, E, and A have been used by protesters to form the backronym “Taxed Enough Already.”[11]

As I wrote above, “Do I have to restate even the most commonly known information in order to prevent you from reaching an erroneous conclusion?”

The answer apparently is YES.

Hahahahahahahahah!!!!!! You moron!!!!!

Oh, sorry, should not be so unkind.

Ah, no. Maybe try Wikipedia.

Taxed Enough Already. Okay, Greg?

Fiscal responsibility is the first plank in their platform.

However, the Tea Party did encourage people to send tea bags to politicians as an indication of their interest.

Do I have to restate even the most commonly known information in order to prevent you from reaching an erroneous conclusion?

I prefer the definition that means sending teabags to elected politicians as a reminder from whence comes their authority, which is far better than Rahm’s dead fish.

This tells me that you actually don’t know what the intended meaning of “tea party” (and thus the whole teabag thing) is. Are you really that utterly uneducated and/or stupid?

Well, I guess I’m not surprised.

First, I did not know what “teabagging” was until is was 1) Referred to obliquely on NBC, and 2) Explained explicitly on Huffington Post in a quotation from Rachel Madcow (for you, Smgumby).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/09/rachel-maddow-ana-marie-c_n_185445.html

The Huffington article stated, “everyone involved is apparently unaware of what the term “teabagging” means.” I presume this included the Tea Party as well as the Democrap Party.

Unlike progressives, I don’t waste my time trying to stay current with all of the homosexual slang, or any other slang for that matter. However, I congratulate you all on your scholarship. I just don’t believe many of you knew what it meant before it was explained to you.

Second, once I learned that some (homosexual) deviants had invented a slang for a rather unusual form of sex, I objected to it being used for the Tea Party. It is inappropriate. I prefer the definition that means sending teabags to elected politicians as a reminder from whence comes their authority, which is far better than Rahm’s dead fish.

The homosexual definition is far more inappropriate than “Democrat Party” (which is a simple and very common misnomer), or “Democrap Party,” (which is also modern slang).

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=democrap

I like this one:
1.) A Democrat.
2.) The result of a liberal sitting on a toilet.
3.) A bigot.

What is it about the Tea Party that you all fear so much? Haven’t you super-intelligent, progressive, scientific elites figured out yet that political disagreement is the cornerstone of democracy?

In one breath you condemn my remarks about homosexuals, mild as they are. In the next, you do the same thing when speaking about the Tea Party.

You anguish over the imaginary rights of homosexuals, and then try to deny the explicit rights of speech and representation by ridiculing someone you do not agree with.

There are some seriously confused people posting here.

Get over it. The teabaggers themselves started the teabag thing, and only took issue with it once they realized what it meant. (And no, it is not an exclusively homosexual thing. It’s possible to teabag a woman.)

It’s like calling “neocon” a liberal epithet. No, no it’s not. The neocons themselves were using it first.