goldengonzo wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Still irrelevant to the point, here.

Words have meaning. We don't get to capriciously choose what we want them to mean.

What one word means to someone, might mean something different to you.

I don't understand why you don't just ignore the term.

No. Not usually.

As for your last point, I just generally regard someone who uses such language as less than intelligent for having to rely on pejorative terms when an honest to goodness vocabulary would work just as well or better.

Writerbuckeye wrote: No. Not usually.

As for your last point, I just generally regard someone who uses such language as less than intelligent for having to rely on pejorative terms when an honest to goodness vocabulary would work just as well or better.

Oh yeah man, people who use naughty words are so dumb and below you.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

goldengonzo wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Still irrelevant to the point, here.

Words have meaning. We don't get to capriciously choose what we want them to mean.

What one word means to someone, might mean something different to you.

I don't understand why you don't just ignore the term.

No. Not usually.

As for your last point, I just generally regard someone who uses such language as less than intelligent for having to rely on pejorative terms when an honest to goodness vocabulary would work just as well or better.

Look WB....you're not remotely close to what the original treabaggers' agenda is all about anyway.

So if I were you, I wouldn't be offended. People aren't talking about you, nor neoconservatives in general.

Footwedge wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

goldengonzo wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Still irrelevant to the point, here.

Words have meaning. We don't get to capriciously choose what we want them to mean.

What one word means to someone, might mean something different to you.

I don't understand why you don't just ignore the term.

No. Not usually.

As for your last point, I just generally regard someone who uses such language as less than intelligent for having to rely on pejorative terms when an honest to goodness vocabulary would work just as well or better.

Look WB....you're not remotely close to what the original treabaggers' agenda is all about anyway.

So if I were you, I wouldn't be offended. People aren't talking about you, nor neoconservatives in general.

This is true. I don't ever remember him mentioning anyting about the Tea Party until Glen Beck and Fox News hijacked it, then all of a sudden so many people were Tea Party supporters.

Glen Beck is a sensationalist, he no more supports the real motives behind the TEa Party than he does in his support of the wars.

Writer,

Which group you have more fun with.....the clueless liberals or the have-all-the-answers libertarians?

For me personally it's the smug fence riders because the lefties are easy targets.

Can we stop with the vanilla?

"teabagger" is used and flung around and is meant to be insulting, along with "marxist" and the like.
I agree though, that those people who use those terms automatically diminish what they say when they put those words into use. I know I always think to myself "what are ya, twelve?"

Another thing, people are so concerned of who/when joined the tea party movement, that they forget the reason the tea party exists.

I wonder if the revolutionaries of the mid-1700's tried to keep track of who joined and when?
I think not...

So, if the "when" didn't bother people back then, why in the world would it matter to anybody today?

CenterBHSFan wrote: Can we stop with the vanilla?

"teabagger" is used and flung around and is meant to be insulting, along with "marxist" and the like.
I agree though, that those people who use those terms automatically diminish what they say when they put those words into use. I know I always think to myself "what are ya, twelve?"

Another thing, people are so concerned of who/when joined the tea party movement, that they forget the reason the tea party exists.

I wonder if the revolutionaries of the mid-1700's tried to keep track of who joined and when?
I think not...

So, if the "when" didn't bother people back then, why in the world would it matter to anybody today?

Because the original tea partiers don't like the new guys that have a demented view of their movement, that's pretty much why.

For example. the originals don't want Glen Beck stinking up the parties.

believer wrote: Writer,

Which group you have more fun with.....the clueless liberals or the have-all-the-answers libertarians?

For me personally it's the smug fence riders because the lefties are easy targets.

If the libertarians have all the answers, maybe the main stream media should pay a little more attention to them.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Another thing, people are so concerned of who/when joined the tea party movement, that they forget the reason the tea party exists.

I wonder if the revolutionaries of the mid-1700's tried to keep track of who joined and when?
I think not...

So, if the "when" didn't bother people back then, why in the world would it matter to anybody today?

It concerns me because SOME of the people that joined later do not follow what the TEa Party originally was put together for. They have a different set of beliefs and are trying to integrate those beliefs and associate them with the Tea Party.

You will see many people at these rallys that are anti-Obama and anti-democrat and will assemble to protest against the same.

The Tea Party's message is not anything about that, it is against over-taxation and for llimiting the size of the federal government. Many people that have joined later couldn't even tell you who re-ignited the Tea Party movement, they would say Glen Beck and they would be wrong!

This is why many fellow Tea Partiers are upset over the hijacking of the Tea Party movement. We're not just against Obama and democrats ideology, we're against many of the republicans and former President Bush's ideology as well.