Politicsnames

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:18 PM

Okay, so what the Hell is a member of the Tea Party CALLED?

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

It isn't a Party. It is a movement without real rules, so there has no official term.

If "Teabagger" is out, which was a term once used by many with no sexual connotation because it at least works as a names, then what simple fricking noun describes a self-styled member of the Tea Party?

We are looking for the ONE WORD, SINGULAR PROPER NOUN

"Tea Party Patriot" is about like wanting to be called, "Oz, the Great and Powerful."

And "Tea Partier" is two words. Again, bag that. You don't have a form of "party" in the singular designation of a member of the Party. That's like calling Czechs "Chzech Republicans." (Because the nation is called the Czech Republic.) Or calling Democrats "Democratic Partiers." (Just because Tea Party is a pun doesn't mean the rest of the world loses the word party)

So what is it? He is a Tea? Teaist? Tearian? A Teap? Teaper?

Added on Edit: Reading replies, the term seems to be "Teapartier" despite my objections to its clunkiness. Since that is the same number of letters as bagger it is a fair substitution and is what should be used. IMO.

80 replies, 3318 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply Okay, so what the Hell is a member of the Tea Party CALLED? (Original post)
Zutak Aug 2014 OP
the more you know Aug 2014 #1
Zutak Aug 2014 #3
the more you know Aug 2014 #6
daemons Aug 2014 #8
Zutak Aug 2014 #11
the more you know Aug 2014 #22
Zutak Aug 2014 #25
Jim_Robinson Aug 2014 #14
_eek Aug 2014 #26
Jim_Robinson Aug 2014 #27
_eek Aug 2014 #29
_eek Aug 2014 #2
City Kitty Aug 2014 #4
theblueboar Aug 2014 #5
Ms.Eloriel Aug 2014 #50
waltervink Aug 2014 #7
Rephleshed Aug 2014 #9
MrSlayer666 Aug 2014 #10
fools_gold Aug 2014 #12
Zutak Aug 2014 #13
fools_gold Aug 2014 #18
Attera Aug 2014 #15
Zutak Aug 2014 #17
Thorson Aug 2014 #20
longj Aug 2014 #48
Ajax Aug 2014 #16
Attera Aug 2014 #19
exindy Aug 2014 #41
nolens volens Aug 2014 #21
Zutak Aug 2014 #23
Zutak Aug 2014 #32
nolens volens Aug 2014 #38
Zutak Aug 2014 #39
700WinMag Aug 2014 #24
Zutak Aug 2014 #28
700WinMag Aug 2014 #43
JoePolitics Aug 2014 #30
Runner Dude Aug 2014 #31
Zutak Aug 2014 #34
700WinMag Aug 2014 #45
Runner Dude Aug 2014 #46
Jaime Lannister Aug 2014 #54
Feldspar Green Aug 2014 #33
Honeywasp Aug 2014 #35
Zutak Aug 2014 #37
JacoBukowski Aug 2014 #36
graham4anything4HC45 Aug 2014 #40
Duke Lacrosse Aug 2014 #42
hap Aug 2014 #44
chknltl117 Aug 2014 #47
Scanman Aug 2014 #65
chknltl117 Aug 2014 #66
Scanman Aug 2014 #68
chknltl117 Aug 2014 #69
Scanman Aug 2014 #72
Scanman Aug 2014 #73
chknltl117 Aug 2014 #77
chknltl117 Aug 2014 #75
Scanman Aug 2014 #79
chknltl117 Aug 2014 #80
Mr_Scorpio Aug 2014 #49
HAL9000 Aug 2014 #51
Parastichopus Aug 2014 #52
Paradigm Aug 2014 #53
Ohio Joe Aug 2014 #55
Jenny Fromdablock Aug 2014 #56
RealGoneOffShore Aug 2014 #57
Tepid Aug 2014 #58
tonguebetweencheeks Aug 2014 #59
Name removed Aug 2014 #60
Scanman Aug 2014 #61
OVdem Aug 2014 #62
oldenuff35 Aug 2014 #63
Scanman Aug 2014 #64
Gilmour Girl Aug 2014 #74
RapidlyAging Aug 2014 #67
Starbux Aug 2014 #70
Gilmour Girl Aug 2014 #71
BlackSabbath Aug 2014 #76
TotallyNotNuclearDem Aug 2014 #78

Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:20 PM

1. An American

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to the more you know (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:22 PM

3. See: "Oz the Great and Powerful"

People are entitled to be called what they call themselves within reason, but not when their choice of name is absurdly contentious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:26 PM

6. Calling someone an American is contentious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to the more you know (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:27 PM

8. Liberals and conservatives are both "Americans"... the title is too vague

It shows no connection to their political philosophy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to the more you know (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:30 PM

11. For any slow witted readers, let me explian the obvious

If the term for Tea person is "American" than either:

a) It is no name at all, since it doesn't define the group. "Human Being" would be almost as useful.

or

b) Tea persons reserve the term "American" for themselves, which would indeed be contentious.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:52 PM

22. "than either"

And you called other people slow witted readers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to the more you know (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:57 PM

25. OMG! You caught me.

You're right. I typed than instead of then, thereby demonstrating that Tea Party persons should be called "Americans."

I humbly accede to your supremacy. Freedom Fries for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to the more you know (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:37 PM

14. An anti-American.

 

But, Teabagger works. Even if the previous use of "Teabagger" is offensive, it's much like the word "gay". Had one meaning at one time, now it has another. Similarly, when you use Teabagger, everyone knows who you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim_Robinson (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:59 PM

26. really? that argument is gay.*


"everyone knows who you are talking about." How many other words, many of them hatefull and bigoted, identify a person or group, if someone refered to the kyke here at work, everyone would know who they meant.






* Dear members of the jury, words evolve, and change their meaning, once this word denoted light colorful fun or happy, then to denota homosexual, mostly male usually demoting an affectation of the effeminate, in this form it was a perjoritive, then was taken by the GL community, it was really only the 2 then as a Pride simble.
And now it is currently in a transition, though it's original and secondary personas still exist and are used, the third is an ongoing shift used mostly by young people but occasionally by others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:02 PM

27. Of course I will defer to you as an expert in the use of "gay" and kyke". You are far more

 

accustomed. Would not go over well where I am from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim_Robinson (Reply #27)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:06 PM

29. I'm the kyke..

And calling my friend at works mother or Nana a teabagger would get you a mouthful of teeth... your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:22 PM

2. Steepers?

I kinda like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:23 PM

4. I Use the Term

"TPer."

It is short and it has the added benefit of describing them as teepeeing the country: having a party, making a mess of politics, and leaving responsible people to clean up their childish mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:26 PM

5. Can't we go back to "wing-nut'?

 

Whatever happened to the good old days?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theblueboar (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 05:43 PM

50. ROFL

At last, a sign of sanity.

Good old days indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:27 PM

7. Republican.

 

Plain and simple.

If you are not a Republican, you cannot belong to the Tea Party. It's conceptually impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:29 PM

10. A Republican.

Since there is no Tea Party.

Bircher might be a good one, considering that's all this AstroTurf "movement" is. A re-hash of the John Birch society that never went away.

Back in the day though, Republicans had the decency to shun them as the nuts that they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:31 PM

12. They'll just have to dis-band

since you can't think of a simple one word name for them. How can such a complex subject exist in a liberal's mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:36 PM

13. Sorry language doesn't interest you

I have seldom seen a fracas where people take offense at being called X while having no sensible substitute.

It is an oddity.

And your notion that desiring sensible Proper Nouns for adherents of ideas, movements, organizations and such is trivial is rather silly, isn't it?

Thought is built on language and language is built on thought.

It helps for a thing often discussed to have an agreed upon designator in the language. One gets tired of asking Ook for another of those long yellow bunched fruits with the peel-able skin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:43 PM

18. I'd rather

they just dis-band.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:39 PM

15. Its simple: a teapartier.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attera (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:42 PM

17. Probably the best, but not ideal

I am uncomfortable with the term because it relies on Tea Party being a pun.

Members of a party are not called partiers.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attera (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:48 PM

20. They took the name from the Boston Tea Party so teapartier would be fitting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thorson (Reply #20)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 05:16 PM

48. Actually, they were more literal, as always and took the name of the tea bags, instead of the whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:41 PM

16. If I were them, I would drop the whole "Tea Party" reference altogether.

It's become such a joke, that they are the only ones that take themselves seriously. Everyone else laughs at them...including mainstream Republicans.

They should go with something like 'Constitutionalists'. They should also do a better job of screening their applicants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ajax (Reply #16)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:44 PM

19. I agree. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ajax (Reply #16)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:41 PM

41. Same problem as calling them americans.

Not unique to the group.

And even more importantly, not even close to being supportive of the constitution. The constitution is based on the idea of individual rights in a totally unbiased manner. The first time anyone ever says one american is a taker and the other is a maker, they have shown bias and are implying an inequality.

Secondly the constitution is a set of laws and rules that govern how people are to be treated in this country. It is refined by laws from the legislative branch, verified by the judicial branch and enforced by the executive branch. It is based on the idea of a commons where there are some things that belong to the collective and not owned by any one entity. Like water and air and even natural resources.

The very first time a person says they believe the constitution is being abused and doesn't go through the procedures to correct that abuse in the manner dictated by the constitution, they cannot be considered a constitutionalist. They have now taken the law into their own hands.

Lastly the constitution is a living document. It has been amended and ruled on for hundreds of years as events dictated. That was according to plan. Change was a part of it. To deny that and they are denying the constitution.

Maybe the term "fake constitutionists" is more appropriate.

I know it's kinda silly but I like to call them teanuts. Or the teagallery. The (OOPS!) big lugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:49 PM

21. Call 'em what you want....

Or you could show some tolerance and call them what they want to be called as you would any other American who wished to be identified with a name they found appropriate for themselves regardless of whether or not it was a "one word, singular, proper noun" or a whopping two words with a hyphen like Tea-Partier.

Or you could continue to call them teabagger if you don't mind using derogatory terms to identify those you disagree with, just don't complain if and when the same tactics are used to identify you against your wishes as that level of hypocrisy is more than a little egregious.

Identifying them with a term they no longer use or approve of doesn't make you clever it just makes you another petty hypocrite like the very people you are criticizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #21)


Response to nolens volens (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:14 PM

32. So you are calling for political correctness?

show some tolerance and call them what they want to be called as you would any other American who wished to be identified with a name they found appropriate for themselves

Are you consistent in that?

I'm not, but I'm not the one calling for political correctness here. I say Indian, and sometimes say homosexual. I might even have said tranny.

Does the irony, that Tea persons routinely and intentionally call members of the Democratic Party by the wrong name, and did so for 20 years before the Tea Party even existed, strike you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Reply #32)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:25 PM

38. Irony

If you're asking if I am consistent about calling people what they ask I certainly try to do that. I would never call you a DUmbass or libtard or even a liberal if you preferred another term and I knew what that term was.

I don't much care what the tea party prefers as a moniker, I like to make my point with factual data from a credible government source as opposed to resorting to name calling. I won't pretend I'm perfect at maintaining that consistent effort, nor will I pretend that the tea party holds any sort of moral high ground as they do not. But in advancing an argument against their position I prefer to use factual data and be as respectful as I can, otherwise I believe I come across as preaching to the choir that already likes my viewpoint. That's great when that's the only desired result. If one is trying to convince the folks in the middle who are not yet swayed by either my argument or that of the tea party I would like to think a factual statement supported by real data holds more sway than name calling.

But no I'm not perfect Zutak, I make errors in judgment and when I am angry I suspect I can be quite an asshole and use terms inappropriate to the task at hand. I would like to think I am mature enough to apologize under those circumstances and move forward with less animosity. But I'm not now claiming to be perfect, nor do I believe I've ever claimed such.

You asked a question I provided an opinionated answer. We might not alway agree but I promise to do my best to be as inoffensive in my dissent as is reasonably possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #38)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:28 PM

39. Fair enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:55 PM

24. Hey look!

A thread used to insult a group of people who have ideas that you don't agree with. Someone should start a thread called "What should we call everyone in the democrat party".

How very adult like.

Carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 700WinMag (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:02 PM

28. You cannot conceptualize a legitimate question, thus

when you see one you can only parse it in terms of what it would mean if written by someone like yourself.

The question is straightforward and sincere. Sorry it troubles you so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Reply #28)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:47 PM

43. It may be straight forward and sincere...

But the replies are not. My comment was not meant to be offensive towards you but was just a generalized comment to all. Unfortunately there is no way to select "reply to - generalized comment to those making a comment that is attempting to insult others with different political views".

So I apologize for bundling your undies, and again so I am clear, the question did not trouble me, the hypocrites attempting to insult did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:06 PM

30. The Tea Party is basically the GOP's angry base.

They aren't a party. And their connection to the Boston Tea Party is based on a delusion of what that event was, and where we are today.

Anyone else remember when they claimed to be "non-partisan"?? They claimed that they were not Republicans. Total BS.

The media even played along all the way through the 2010 elections.

In reality, they were nothing more than the craziest members of the GOP's base. Easily whipped into a frenzy with lies about the government taking over Medicare.

"Republican" is what they should be called. Because the GOP establishment hates that.

The GOP is fine with the left using the term "teabagger", because it separates these nuts from the party to which they actually belong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:08 PM

31. I'm going to stick with teabagger.

They are what they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Runner Dude (Reply #31)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:18 PM

34. I disagree. If said with malice, it ought not be said.

Slur names are just dumb, pretty much always.

The raw hypocrisy of the wounded Tea persons is hilarious, but that doesn't justify things like democrat and libtard and such. Or calling Boehnner "boner," which is embarrassing behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Reply #34)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:50 PM

45. Agreed.

Wow, look at that. Could you have ever imagined?

See maybe we all can just get along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Reply #34)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 05:01 PM

46. I wish I could concur with your opinion, unfortunately I can't.

The right wingers have used slurs against the left for as long as I can remember. All of a sudden they start getting it thrown back at them and they are outraged, outraged, I tell ya!

I like to think I can give as good as I get and seeing them stomp their cloven hooves in frustration makes me want to use it even more.

What goes around comes around I always say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Runner Dude (Reply #46)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 08:13 PM

54. cloven hooves!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:15 PM

33. Tea-ist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:19 PM

35. It is a party, actually.

 

I don't know what you'd call individual members, though.

An anecdote: most libertarians do not identify with the tea party.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-usa-politics-libertarians-idUSBRE99S03Q20131029

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeywasp (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:21 PM

37. That's an interesting datum

Do most evangelical Christian conservatives? I don't know about most, but I would guess that is the actual Tea Party base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:19 PM

36. If I can't use "Teabagger" any more, then I'm...

going to have to go with either "jagoff" or "ignoramus".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:32 PM

40. completely out of power in 2016 with an 80-20 in office

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:42 PM

42. A human being, or a person

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:48 PM

44. Madge?

Kidding. I pretty much refer to them as conservatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 05:03 PM

47. The bane of the Republican party.

I believe this group has become powerful enough to have a strong influence on the Republican Party's elections. The Republican Party itself is mostly representative of corporatist needs and the Tea Party is mostly representative of individual liberty. Who should the Republican politician represent? The group that pays them the most money or the folks that can vote them in or out of office?

The Tea Party has imo, become an effective cancer to the Republican Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl117 (Reply #47)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 09:30 AM

65. It's true, the establishment republicans hate them,

conservatives, not so much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scanman (Reply #65)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 12:21 PM

66. Perhaps this is a good thing.

Regardless of my personal view regarding the priorities of Tea Party voters, i like the idea of having as an organized voting block a group of citizens who are seeking their social issues to be represented via our political process. IMO the Republican Party primarily represents corporate issues as opposed to social issues. As a progressive i prefer seeing social issues out there being discussed by the American citizenry. IMO our democracy should be about We The People not 'we the corporate' bottom line.

From what i have heard on the radio, the Tea Party was started by corporatists as a tool to strengthen Republican voters into supporting thinly veiled corporatist needs. Instead conservative and independent voters signed on for the more social agendas. This has become a nightmare for the corporatists because their plan has turned against them. I have no specific examples that come to mind but if this is so then if i may quote Thom Hartmann: "Good on Them".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl117 (Reply #66)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 07:42 PM

68. I've never heard that, I do know that it's not organized per se, and there isn't really a "leader"

it's just ordinary citizens who think the government is too big and spends too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scanman (Reply #68)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 08:25 PM

69. Thom Hartmann and maybe also Rachel Maddaw pointed out quite early on....:

It was shortly after President Obama took office and the "Tea Party" was becoming a newsworthy item that this so called 'grass roots movement' had some well funded backers who provided them with those new busses and the fancy/shmancy patriotic looking "Tea Party Express" paint jobs that were on them. I wish I could remember more....I don't generally quote opinion pieces but this New York Times Op Ed says that the primary financiers of the movements birth were none other than Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=0
That parallels with what I recall Thom saying back then too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl117 (Reply #69)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 09:14 PM

72. Let's say the Koch Bros. give them money.

Does that make them any more illegitimate than any other political organization?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scanman (Reply #72)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 09:19 PM

73. Are the Koch Bros. American citizens? Are they criminals? Is it illegal for them to donate

to political organizations? Are there any rich liberals who donate as much or more then them? Is George Soros an american citizen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scanman (Reply #73)

Fri Aug 15, 2014, 01:54 PM

77. Donaters to America's democratic process should indeed be citizens...

...nor have I argued that they be called criminal for doing so. Yes of course there are 'rich liberals' who donate too. My discussion here has utterly nothing to do with 'sides' btw and I hope this is clear. I hope you see that my discussion is instead about corporatism's likely failures in influencing the American citizenry's democratic process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scanman (Reply #72)

Fri Aug 15, 2014, 01:27 PM

75. No more no less legitimate.

Legitimacy is not at all in question from me. That is a whole different topic and one made by others. I get where they are coming from, believing that they part the curtains on the Great and Powerful OZ revealing him to be something other than what he purports to be. The point that the Tea Party was (maybe still is) being funded and perhaps even founded by those who have an agenda is germane to my discussion in that I believe there are areas where the members and the funders/(founders?) have intentions which are at cross purposes. I am sensing that this is due to differing goal sets. On the one side is the desires of corporate interests on the other the desires of a substantial block of our citizenry who have taken on the name Tea Party. As a progressive, I do not support corporate influence on our government but also because I am a progressive I strongly support the citizenry's influence on our government. In a government OF BY and FOR it's citizenry, it has to be the CITIZENRY which counts because that is the purest form of democracy. From that perspective, I absolutely recognize the Tea Party's legitimacy.

FWIW I also recognize the legitimacy of corporate influence on a (and our) government. As a citizen of our democracy I am strongly opposed to such because I can look to history to see how such influence has caused severe damages to the citizenry. One need look no further than the results of the arguments made by Giovanni Gentile-(sp?) and his eager student Benito Mussolini to see this. I understand the argument that history can be repeated by those who ignore it and such fascism could come to our shores via the citizenry being 'conned'. I have a little more faith in 'We The People' than that. It is because of my faith in our citizenry to ultimately 'get it right' that prompts me to point to those cross purposes between the members of the Tea Party and the corporatists who fund/maybe founded their organization. These cross purposes bolster my faith that the argument I make here is the correct one. I do not want the Tea Party gone, I want them speaking up loud and proud. Let their views be made topics of discussion by our citizenry and ultimately let 'US' decide what will work and what wont. The corporatist may think they can get us to cede power to them and they thought to do so via funding this Tea Party but I hope I have made clear that I see it did not work out that way nor should it have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chknltl117 (Reply #75)

Fri Aug 15, 2014, 06:15 PM

79. Very well written

and I can't tell you how much your civility here is appreciated. I want to say that as of now individual who identify as TEA party members are for the most part not contributing money to the cause because of fear from the IRS, donations are way down because of reprisals from the government, remember, anything labeled TEA party, patriot or freedom in any wording was red flagged by our government. This is how facists do things. I understand your problems with corporations, do you have any problems with unions donating "contributions" to a political party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scanman (Reply #79)

Fri Aug 15, 2014, 10:11 PM

80. I have not given union contributions much thought but....

.... wouldn't it be nice if the only campaign contributions our 'representatives' could take would come from the individual voters and that there would be an agreed upon cap as to how much the individual could contribute? I dunno, it seems to me that such a system could have a profound affect on how our 'representatives' represent us! A philosophy such as this would be death to corporate power in our government. You will not find a single bought n paid for 'representative of the people' going along with such a notion but if you ask him or her how they feel about the countless hours they have to spend drumming up the ducats needed to keep them winning their seats you will hear quite the contradiction!

I hold no ill will toward anyone and realize that I am human. I will get some things right and some things wrong, this is true for everyone. The way I see democracy it is based on a real simple system: Two minds are better than one, three better than two and more is better than few. I guess my bottom line is that I believe in the true power of the people. Even with so many minds we can not possibly get it right every time but given enough time we can fix the things we get wrong.

Regarding fascism. Giovani Gentile (again not sure about the spelling) was the economics professor who first coined the term fascism. Fascism itself was far older but his was the model Mussolini embraced. This is a government where the corporations decide what is best for themselves and in practice allows the corporations to flourish. Flourishing corporations provide jobs, jobs provide money to the employees to spend. This is Trickle Down Economics in it's pure form if you think about it. It was utterly no wonder at all why the citizens of Italy backed such a system during the Great Depression. They had no jobs and their politicians had no answers. Mussolini embraced the fascist model and fired their 'congress' replacing them with representatives from the various large industries. With the corporations calling the shots the citizenry was put back to work and the economy flourished but along comes WWII and well the rest is history too. Using today's jargon: Mussolini let the job creators call the shots! It is very easy to see how the pre-WWII Italian citizenry came to adore Mussolini and his fascist government.

Like most Americans, I do not want to see my democracy-our power of the citizenry ceded to a fascist form of government. Too many have died defending our democracy and I know of nobody willing to give up on her just yet. Let the corporatists form and fund whatever group they like, it will still be populated with American citizens (as is the Tea Party we speak of). As long as each of us supports the power of the citizens I believe we have even greater things ahead of us.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 05:25 PM

49. "Teapublicans?"

Sure, AFP stepped in it by encouraging the "Teabagger" sobriquet. Shoot, they even printed buttons and stickers with the word.

But I think that we should use a phrase that's indicative of the fact that the TP is nothing more than an extremist fringe of the Republican Party, engaging in internecine warfare with the party's leadership for control.

Teapublican is a great summation of what they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 05:48 PM

51. Morans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 06:53 PM

52. I usually use 'Teahadist'.

They seem to want to impose *their* church law on everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 08:11 PM

53. You could refer to them as the

"Americans who don't need and depend on the government to take care of them and provide for their every need party", or "the individuals who are capable of taking care of themselves party", or "the people who aren't grossly offended by every perceived slight injustice by feminists or bogus white privilege party", or "the ones who work for a living" party.
Just do not say they are part of any democrat party. They might be highly offended without the "ic".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 08:21 PM

55. Why would teabagger be out?

I thought the right did not want to be PC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 08:22 PM

56. Teapartier

What's wrong with that? You are inventing rules in order to not allow that, when in reality it is one syllable more than teabagger. It's obviously the correct term and it's not hard to figure that out. What do you call a member of Occupy Wall Street? "Rapey Cop Car Pooper" is too long. How about OWSer?! Hey...that'll work!

Geesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 08:34 PM

57. Teahadist, because they want to make this country a theocracy.

Or Talibornagain.

Or Dominionist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 08:35 PM

58. Ask him/her what thieir name is, and use that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 08:42 PM

59. teanoid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 10:11 PM

61. Okay, so what the Hell is a member of the Tea Party CALLED

A citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 10:29 PM

62. Teahadist n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Wed Aug 13, 2014, 11:38 PM

63. members of the tea party are simply citizens.

Not too hard for an american to figure out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 09:27 AM

64. Wht is it so important to the left to find a derogatory name to call them?

How about, TEA party member? American? Citizen? Voter???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scanman (Reply #64)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 10:14 PM

74. How about Republicans?

Isn't that what they are? Every elected one is elected on the GOP ticket. That makes them Republicans. End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 05:18 PM

67. They vote republican, therefore they are republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 08:35 PM

70. "Trickle-downer"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Thu Aug 14, 2014, 08:41 PM

71. They should be called Republicans.

Until they start winning elections by running on the "Tea Party" ticket, they shall be known as Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Fri Aug 15, 2014, 01:29 PM

76. Grifters

 

skels

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zutak (Original post)

Fri Aug 15, 2014, 01:57 PM

78. Sucker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsnames