Is this “Democrat Party” something new we should be concerned about, and what does it have to do with the topic at hand?
Bad argument. It’s very likely that there are conservatives out there who fit that bill. Maybe not many, but more than 1. Especially for the first part.
Only if you’re thrown one. Being held down and beaten with a Democrat can leave nasty bruises.
Sorry “Democratic” party. Why, exactly, do you choose to address my typo, versus addressing the substance of the post. As to what does it have to do with the topic, my post is a direct rebuttal of Diogenes’s most recent posting. Did you see the quote? Did you ask Diogenes what his/her post had to do with the topic at hand?
True. I suppose you could find one conservative that believes the moon is a giant ball of cheese and is ruled by yellowfin tuna.
Okay, then how about one conservative columnist or elected conservative that believes those things.
Kids just wanna get their kicks today.
Indeed.
Unconstitutional but it fits the bill IMO. Wasn’t there also a politican who was trying to get a muslim removed from office just because of his religion?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/12/national/main5972190.shtml
Oh, I wouldn’t go that far…
Probably because it is a well-known Republican tactic to change the Democratic Party’s name to ‘Democrat Party’ in an effort to make them sound undemocratic.
Typo??
Give
Me
A
Freakin’
Break.
Easy-peasy.
That’s good, though I prefer “Simple minded motherfucking teabaggers” myself. Much more accurate and descriptive.
Uhh, yeah. Welcome to the SDMB, YoureBeingABinkyBoo. I hope you have a good time here.
And you should know that some of your fellow Dopers possess the finest disingenuousness detectors known to science.
I’ve got another - how about Brit Hume on Fox News telling Tiger that he would need to convert from Buddhism to Christianity in order to be forgiven.
If any tea bagger offered up an alternative budget, that would be a serious engagement with the political system. Complaining about high taxes and high spending without specifying actual and arithmetically proportionate budget cuts is just wanking.
But it gets worse. They seem to believe that the worst aspect of Nazism was retaining a health care program adopted by the previous administration. They engage in paranoid birther conspiracy theories. Then there are the occasional racist caricatures. Not all tea baggers believe these things of course: but those that do not have shamed themselves with their silence.
To the extent that there are any good people in the Tea Party movement, they have not displayed their virtues.
True that. But let’s not lose sight of the main point. Populist conservatives say little that is remotely helpful and waste our time with their hysteria and factually challenged conspiracy theories.
It’s the serious conservatives --ones who embrace empiricism and renounce religious and economic fundamentalism, along with other crackpot theorizing-- that need to organize or at least adopt a label.
Please explain to me how my logic would yeild such a result? I’ve made no statement consistent with the idea that my entire check should be turned over to the government.
By the way, this Teabagger movement sprung up coincidently with the election of Obama. Some of the signs at your Joplin party referred to socialism and debt. Is it fair to say that most of the Teabaggers preferred Bush to Obama (since they did not appear to protest during the Bush presidency)? Do you tend to support Republicans?
Why is that? Under Democratic presidencies, people at all levels of income see more growth in their own personal income then they do under Republican presidencies. The stock market performs better under Democratic presidencies. More jobs are created under Democratic presidencies.
Under Bush, zero net jobs were created. Bush was the only president in recent history to preside over two terms of decline in median household income.
If debt and personal income are your criteria, you should be supporting Democrats. Why aren’t you in favor of greater household income, greater job growth, and greater stock market performance?
By the way, Obama’s policies have averted a second Great Depression and have yeilded consistently improving jobs numbers.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/11/21/business/21stimulus_graphic.html
Here’s the graphic representation of the jobs numbers that Steve Benen keeps over at Washington Monthly: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021821.php
Given all the data, I have to wonder why Teabaggers are protesting about personal income and debt now? What’s the matter with Joplin?
Typo, unintentional choice of terms, whatever… As I’m not a Republican, I don’t keep up with “Republican tactics”, be they well-known or not.
I am a registered Democrat and have been since 1986. I’m a “Roosevelt Democratic”, not a liberal stooge, like so many of the posters on SD, who blindly and unquestioningly, lick the boots of the liberal elite, and whatever celebrity is doling out advice at the moment. There’s more wrong with our party these days than there is right. It’s been hijacked by left-wing socialists, in the same way that the Republican party has been hijacked by right-wing religious extremists and racists. We don’t always get it right, anymore than the Republicans always get it wrong, and I know how to disagree without calling someone vulgar names.
Rather than jumping ship, I’ve chosen to patiently wait for my party to return to it’s core values of responsible stewardship of the economy, environment, and social welfare (not social entitlements), and providing for effective national defense without military adventurism. In the meantime I’ll suffer through it’s hijacking by fringe groups who believe that the nation’s most pressing issues are gay rights, abortion, and climate change based on junk science. I don’t recall ever asking Jeanine Garafalo, the one Baldwin who doesn’t make terrible movies, or Danny Glover to be spokespeople for my party, and I’m sure the Republicans aren’t too thrilled with Pat Robertson. I never supported Obama, and am ashamed of my party for not supporting a seasoned and experienced politician who could have actually accomplished something, and for buying all of the hope and change nonsense. I’m ashamed of Obama in the same way that many Republicans are ashamed of Bush for his Iraq War and his out of control deficit spending.
It’s funny that, in a country founded on dissent, the Teabaggers are vilified for it, as are the Democrats who haven’t sold their souls to the Obama machine. Maybe that’s why I feel more affinity with the Teabaggers than I do to my own party.
What does this have to do with the OP? About as much as most of the posts in this thread do, and that’s why were in the pit.
Excuse me, but… I can’t possibly be the only one who has noticed this.
The difinition of “teabag” is to dip the scrotum in and out of another person’s mouth. “Teabag” is a verb. “Teabagging” takes two (at least) participants: the “teabagger” and the “teabagee”. The person who’s doing the scrotum dipping would be the “teabagger”, the person into who’s (or is it whom’s?) mouth the scrotum is being dipped would be the “teabagee”.
Generally speaking the “teabagger” is considered the top in this sexual activity, the “teabagee”, is considered the bottom. The teabagger is the dominant, the teabagee is the submissive.
Here, I’ll use it in a sentance: “Bill O’Reilly teabagged Keith Olbermann.”
To sum it up… a teabagger is a freaky-deaky sex machine, while a teabagee is a nasty little whore.
So to identify that movement, and those people, as “teabaggers” implicitly identifies the opposition as “tebagees”. Maybe that’s why the liberal media has finally tired of the term “teabagger”, because it makes them the “teabagees”.
So, uh, which one of y’all bitches wants to be my teabagee?
What? You mean like the 1990’s?