Most recently, I got into this argument with an earnest member of the left who insisted it was because of protestors who, on April 15th, wore Teabags on their hat.
Forgetting for a moment that putting teabags on your hat is not the same as being asked to be called a Teabagger, I did my research.
Predictably, it turns out that a member of the left who started using the term.
Rachel Maddow went on the air April 9th (6 days before the protest), and in giddy glee, she played a few tapes in a row of guys holding up tea bags who said that we should tea bag the White House.
This, of course, sent Rachel into schoolgirl convulsions. More over, it gave her the presumed license to use the term "Teabaggers" as much as humanly possible.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
So let's get this clear: the first person to use the term was Rachel Maddow.
Which couldn't be more ironic,
If you have a differing opinion, or believe me to be in error, please post to me and I'll make the correction or add your counter argument to the mix.
9 comments:
The tea baggers stole their name from the original noble tea party cause, in order to start their own, close to fact free, fear mongering, screaming stupidity. They earned the name tea baggers, by tarnishing the tea party name.
Those who preform the act of "tea bagging" are "tea baggers".
If you send all your teabags directly to whom ever you feel deserve it (virtual or real teabags), or if you contribute to a fund(tea)raiser you are in fact tea bagging, thus a tea bagger.
In the early days of the TP moment people was incensed to send teabags to the WH.
Among all those thousands who was preparing their first tea bagging of the WH, you will find the first person using the term tea baggers to describe his own group.
Dear Anonymous,
Let's start with the fact that you posted anonymously, not even leaving your first name, to call an entire group of people Teabaggers.
Not even Rachel was that cowardly.
The biggest problem with your faulty logic?
Its not the Tea Bag Party.
Its the Tea Party.
Rachel took one guys comments 'Let's tea bag the White House', referring to sending Tea Bags to the White House, and giggled her way into a 3rd grade frenzy.
You continue in that same frame, while trying to justify it by using the logic that anyone who protests using Tea as a theme is a tea bagger.
If you continue to use such logic, I presume that you would also call the original people who threw tea into the water Tea Baggers too?
Of course not.
No person who can argue factually would.
It is because you can no longer argue that...
* spending isn't out of control (it is)
* that our government is taking too much control over our lives and industry (health care, banking, and the auto industry)
* that our debt is a genuine reason to be worried about our future
...that you need to name call.
Try arguing the facts. Starting with the one that, to date, not one member of the Tea Party has called themselves a Tea Bagger.
If you want to call someone names instead of arguing facts, at least own up to the idea that you aren't interested in facts.
So saying you want to 'teabag' the white house is ok?
But if someone says one who teabags is a teabagger they are contemptible?
Talk about faulty logic!
The tea baggers did it to themselves through simple ignorance... of both American history and current events. They will now forever and rightfully be associated with that term.
Mr. Moto Said:
"So saying you want to 'teabag' the white house is ok? "
No.
Where did you think I said that?
Mr. Moto, you can't just make up things that I never said.
You said that 'the teabaggers' did it to themselves by simple ignorance... which is the faultiest logic of them all.
If one black man calls another man the N word, does that give me permission to call all black men N words? Of course not. Only people who believe that one person in a group represents an entire group would think like that.
Its not that people like yourself are calling that one guy a teabagger. Its that you've decided to dismiss an entire group of people by name-calling. And instead of blaming the name-calling on your own hatred and ignorance, you're literally using the excuse that ONE GUY said that he was going to teabag the WH.
Its the height of ignorance to name call when you disagree with a group. But when you can't even cop to the fact that you're name-calling, you're cowardly too.
You sure spend a lot of energy defending "teabaggers" from being called "teabaggers." I guess the "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" adage passed you by as a kid.
Pervis,
As a child molester, I'm sure you're not bothered with name calling. Because after a bunch of people call you a child molester, I'm sure it had no affect on your reputation.
Correct?
Particularly when a bunch of people argued that you were the first one to call yourself a child molester, so it must be okay?
Maybe I'm being too subtle in making my point, so I'll spell it out here:
The only reason that the left is using the term Teabagger to describe those in the tea party movement is because they can't attack them on facts
Their only alternative is to name-call, and hope to ruin their reputation that way. Since the whole "you called yourself Tea Baggers first" bullshit never caught on, the newest tactic is to call all Tea Party members racist.
Eventually, one day, they will get around to actually discussing what the Tea Party members are protesting against: Out of control spending and the ever-increasing smothering effect of the Federal government.
But that would take critical thinking, and a lot less name calling.
So I take it you're okay with name calling. Right?
Sorry Chicago John. If you say you ride bikes, then you're a bike rider. It's just unfortunate for members of the tea party that they encouraged people to "tea bag" the White House and Liberals.
And, you see--they were trying to be witty and encourage their perspective just as the liberals are by latching on to the "teabagger" moniker. It's just the way it goes.
Furthermore, your comment that they chose to use the term "teabagger" because they can't attack them on the facts is a bit obtuse. It's a one word quip, not a multi-point argument. They have two separate purposes.
With that being said, I do NOT use the term "teabagger" no matter how much I disagree with their platform. I do believe it's juvenile, but it is beyond reproach as those who disagree with the tea party movement should not be held to a separate standard than those who don't. For example, you call someone cowardly because he responded as anonymous and another because he "can't cop to the fact that he's name calling". Surely you can see the double standard there. Name calling is name calling; disagreeing with that just shows lack of objectivity.
This definitely goes both ways-- from naming health care reform "Obamacare" to calling Obama a socialist, the jabs are flying on both sides. Again, it's just truly unfortunate that the term "tea baggers" was such an easy jump from "tea bag the White House.."
"Sorry Chicago John. If you say you ride bikes, then you're a bike rider."
Yes. But then you have to take that to the next logical test.
Are Tea Party members telling people that they bag Tea?
No, they are not.
Yet, some people feel obliged to use the "Tea Bagger" nickname.
"It's just unfortunate for members of the tea party that they encouraged people to "tea bag" the White House and Liberals."
Yet, they didn't call themselves "Teabaggers". The left did.
Even so, I go back to my previous example:
If a black man called another man an N word, does that give everyone else license to call all black people the n word?
Of course not.
Yet, that's the juvenile logic being employed.
"And, you see--they were trying to be witty and encourage their perspective just as the liberals are by latching on to the "teabagger" moniker. It's just the way it goes."
No, name-calling is not the way it goes. When you label an entire group by a pejorative term, its a deliberate attempt to deride the group without having to argue the merits of the group.
"Furthermore, your comment that they chose to use the term "teabagger" because they can't attack them on the facts is a bit obtuse. It's a one word quip, not a multi-point argument."
Clearly, you haven't seen how many people have been dismissed as "teabaggers"?
Honest? Never?
"With that being said, I do NOT use the term "teabagger" no matter how much I disagree with their platform. I do believe it's juvenile,..."
Good! Good for you!
"...For example, you call someone cowardly because he responded as anonymous and another because he "can't cop to the fact that he's name calling". Surely you can see the double standard there. Name calling is name calling;"
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
The definition of coward, according to webster:
"one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity"
I had an actual reason for calling that person a coward.. because they showed a disgraceful fear or timidity.
I wasn't calling them a name just for name-calling sake.
On the other hand, when I called another poster a "child molester", my point wasn't to actually call them a child molester, but to point out to them that if its cool to call people names, then they should be okay with being called a child molester.
However, you aren't getting the actual difference between name-calling, and using terms that have weight:
"This definitely goes both ways-- from naming health care reform "Obamacare"..."
It was his signature issue. He, himself, has claimed it as one of his greatest achievements. Biden said that its a 'big f(ing) deal.'
"...to calling Obama a socialist,"
This annoys me more then probably any other issue today.
For centuries, poltiicians were referred to by the policies that they preferred. Republicans are regularly referred to as greedy capitalists. For as long as I've been alive, Democrats have been referred to as socialists.
Suddenly, this past year, socialist is off limits?
Why?
Is it not a political leaning? Did it somehow go out of vogue to be referred to as a socialist?
Obama IS a socialist. That doesn't mean that he's necessarily evil, or that he has to wear a giant S on his suit. It does, however, mean that just as recently as today, he's talked about 'taxing the rich' so that they can 'share the sacrifice'.
In olden days, that was referred to as redistributing wealth.
Now, suddenly, the left can't admit this. I dunno why that is.
"Again, it's just truly unfortunate that the term "tea baggers" was such an easy jump from "tea bag the White House.""
It wasn't an easy jump. If it were, then I wouldn't have had to have pointed out that it was Rachel Maddow who used the term Teabbagger first, and there wouldn't be so many people insisting that some Tea Party member said it before then.
Post a Comment