Bill Maher: New Rules for Teabaggers

[JakeStarkey]

The facts remain that the Tea Party is very, very small and still burdened with fringe whingers that the party should get rid of, and that the American people still find BHO far more popular than the GOP and its policies and its personalities.

In other words, cry on, little Tea Party people.

This would be a legit point if liberals had any intentions on ever taking them seriously in the first place. The vast majority of the Tea Party movement are just frustrated Americans exercising their right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The couple of extremists don't detract from that...unless you're determined to dismiss them in the first place.

Rephrase it this way, and you will be accurate: "This would be a legit point if the Democratic and Republican parties had any intentions of ever taking taxation and big government issues seriously in the first place."

 

[L.K.Eder]

I saw that. That is from December of last year.

Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.

The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.

As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009: www. youtube. com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8

1:01.

Nice LIE.

That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28.

So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.

Thanks for the spin you LOSE.

LMAO! STILL making a fool of yourself.



What a fucking idiot!

April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party

posted feb 2009.

 

[Si modo]

Nice LIE.

That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28.

So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.

Thanks for the spin you LOSE.

LMAO! STILL making a fool of yourself.



What a fucking idiot!

April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party

posted feb 2009.

Read the thread, moron.

 

[L.K.Eder]

LMAO! STILL making a fool of yourself.



What a fucking idiot!

April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party

posted feb 2009.

Read the thread, moron.

i did, now what?

EDIT: lol, a neg rep for a link, you are cute.

 

[Si modo]

April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party

posted feb 2009.

Read the thread, moron.

i did, now what?[/QUOTEThen you are an even bigger moron. Or, just taking dante's lead in the attention whore game.

Idiot.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Read the thread, moron.

i did, now what?[/QUOTEThen you are an even bigger moron. Or, just taking dante's lead in the attention whore game.

Idiot.

learn to quote, and get some social skills.

 

[keefer1000]

im new here to this site but i hate to have my first post be this sick but here goes..... there is no shame in being called a teabagger by a salad tosser. think kiss my sen. leahy

 

[Si modo]

learn to quote, and get some social skills.

TFF! Do examples of overly emotional fools get any better than this?

 

[L.K.Eder]

TFF! Do examples of overly emotional fools get any better than this?

most probably, you never shut up.

i summarize your posts thusly:

 

[Si modo]

TFF! Do examples of overly emotional fools get any better than this?

most probably, you never shut up.

i summarize your posts thusly:

You and Dante both have no point here. Well, one that sane persons can see, at least.

 

[L.K.Eder]

TFF! Do examples of overly emotional fools get any better than this?

most probably, you never shut up.

i summarize your posts thusly:

You and Dante both have no point here. Well, one that sane persons can see, at least.

what is your obsession with dante? continue cleaning up your fucked up quotes. then i can clean up mine that was caused by your fat finger mistake.

 

[Si modo]

most probably, you never shut up.

i summarize your posts thusly:

You and Dante both have no point here. Well, one that sane persons can see, at least.

what is your obsession with dante? continue cleaning up your fucked up quotes. then i can clean up mine that was caused by your fat finger mistake.

Still upset? Get a grip. Or at least a tissue. Supposedly grown men crying is cringeworthy.

*shudders*

 

[L.K.Eder]

You and Dante both have no point here. Well, one that sane persons can see, at least.

what is your obsession with dante? continue cleaning up your fucked up quotes. then i can clean up mine that was caused by your fat finger mistake.

Still upset? Get a grip. Or at least a tissue. Supposedly grown men crying is cringeworthy.

*shudders*

i am not upset. i am also not crying.

i must say i find you rather illogical, clouded by emotions, maybe?

i'd lash out, too, probably, with an abysmal personality and track record like yours.

 

[drsmith1072]

I saw that. That is from December of last year.

Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.

The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.

As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009: www. youtube. com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8

1:01.

From the article:

Actually, the first Tea Party rallies occurred on Feb. 27. I was at the Washington, D.C., event, where I snapped the picture Nordlinger is talking about.

February-March-April

I remember the first teaparty events being mentioned on TV and the net, because I remember thinking it was strange to start protesting the President after he had been in office for a little over a month. At that point, I came to the conclusion that I have now, the movement was really just a GOP wolf in sheep's clothing.

Slick, but the question is when the Tea Party first used the DEROGATORY term. That was after the pig Maddow so crassly introduced me to another meaning of teabag in April 2009.

No bait and switch.

No sale, GTH.

So, keep up the ad hominem. You earned the reputation for it by now.

Apparently you never learned to read.

The picture that geaux is talking about shows tea partiers using the DEROGATORY term BEFORE maddow aired them using on her show in april.

You lose AGAIN.

 

[drsmith1072]

I DID read the blog. I did not look at the link to the picture in the blog thoroughly the first time through. I have a mouse that likes to over scroll.

But if you still want to assume I have no honor, go for it.

No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter. You don't see that often here. So I retract what I said on that matter.

The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.

If that's not the case, then it's not the case.

This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames. It opens my mind.

From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.

LOL So you were WRONG and now after all of your baseless personal attacks and accusations you try to pretend that none of it happened as you hope that your dishonesty and partisan attacks go away? LOL

As far as "reasonable arguments" go, you are presented with them a lot and most of the time you tend to ingore facts, edit posts to leave out facts that you can't respond to and just attack those who dare disagree with your opinions.

I can't see why geaux is taking it so easy on you after all you have said to him. Based on your history you will just engage in teh same petty and baseless personal attacks in the future so I can't see why geaux should let you off so easilly now. LOL I guess geaux is far better person that you could ever dream of being because I sincerely doubt that you would be so gracious if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[Si modo]

No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter. You don't see that often here. So I retract what I said on that matter.

The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.

If that's not the case, then it's not the case.

This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames. It opens my mind.

From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.

LOL So you were WRONG and now after all of your baseless personal attacks and accusations you try to pretend that none of it happened as you hope that your dishonesty and partisan attacks go away? LOL

As far as "reasonable arguments" go, you are presented with them a lot and most of the time you tend to ingore facts, edit posts to leave out facts that you can't respond to and just attack those who dare disagree with your opinions.

I can't see why geaux is taking it so easy on you after all you have said to him. Based on your history you will just engage in teh same petty and baseless personal attacks in the future so I can't see why geaux should let you off so easilly now. LOL I guess geaux is far better person that you could ever dream of being because I sincerely doubt that you would be so gracious if the shoe was on the other foot.

Do you have a point, or do you just want to keep making a fool of yourself?

 

[drsmith1072]

Civility = Go along with everything we want; no questions asked.

Bingo.

What is funny is that is kind of how righties view patriotism.

When they are for blindly supporting a republican president then any dissenters are called unpatriotic and un-American because questioning a president during a time of war gives aid and comfort to the enemy

and yet, When they are against a democrat president then dissent is called patriotic and if you are with them against the democrat president then you are unpatriotic and un-American. The fact that we are still at war means nothing.

 

[drsmith1072]

Calling someone who advocates socialist policies a socialist is not the equivalent of calling someone who criticizes those policies a vulgar term for a sexual act.

Just sayin'.

Calling someone a socialist based on policies that have been used or recommended in the past by non-socialist republicans in an attempt to gain politically is far worse than using a name whose double meaning was used by the very group who are only now upset with it because they think that they can use it to gain politically.

What "socialist" policies are you talking about?? Please explain.

 

[drsmith1072]

Calling someone who advocates socialist policies a socialist is not the equivalent of calling someone who criticizes those policies a vulgar term for a sexual act.

Just sayin'.

You're right, but my point is, liberals seem to think a legitimate criticism like "Obama endorses socialist policies" is incendiary while they snicker like school girls because apparently it's cute to call these people "tea-baggers". The Right is supposed to water-down, or totally keep quiet, about a legitimate charge while the Left gets to indulge in baseless name-calling only meant to piss people off.

yeah he is FAR right but hardly correct.

calling obama a socialist, communist, nazi, fascist is NOT legitimate critcism. It is fear tactics as the right tries to bring about another red scare so they can gain politically.

The whole reason "tea baggers" is hilarious is becuase tea partiers used it indiscriminently in the beginning and only backed off from it AFTER they realized it's alternate meaning. The fact that they didn't know is what is hilarious. Oh but hilary going overseas with a reset button that has the incorrect word on it, now that is hilarious according to republicans.

Righties love to take every tiny thing that anyone on the left says and will even go so far as to take it out of context in order to smear the lefties and will harp on it endlessly. However, when that microscope ios turned on them they take offence and pretend to take the high road temporarily to try and make it go away.
They hope that the lefties will agree based on their conscience to take the high road and give the righties a break and they usually do. An example if this is in this very thread.

BTW since you to are vague how about some specifics as to obama's socialist policies?

 

[drsmith1072]

Incorrect. Anyone who criticizes Obama's policies is labeled a Racist.

actually IF you could read the poster being called out for racism introduced race into the discussion when he brought up ebonics.

I really wish posters would just ignore losers like pale with his...

That's his ebonics.

remarks, because it is a waste of time and all calling them out for their racist based remarks does is open the door for lemming righties to parrot the same tired old baseless defenses and excuses for one of their own introducing race into the discussion.

i.e.

The Libs are Stuck On Racism.

and

Incorrect. Anyone who criticizes Obama's policies is labeled a Racist.

and

You want the definition of "racist?"

It's a liberal losing an argument and that's all they have left is calling you racist.

It's nothing but a ploy to change the subject because they know that they are losing the debate and so they can make BS claims like those above.