TotalSonic wrote on Mon, 31 May 2010 20:59 |
ummm... hate to break this to you but tea bagging has referred to the act of putting testicles into someones mouth for decades now. This relatively obscure piece of slang was made somewhat main stream in a fairly funny scene in John Waters' movie "Pecker." Which is why it's fairly hilarious that a group of people would proudly call themselves "Tea Baggers" totally oblivious to this fact. Best regards, Steve Berson |
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 01 June 2010 15:53 |
Absolutely correct. Tea Baggers named themselves this and used the name proudly until finally deciding the name is derogatory. I believe the name is apt but would happily call them "Ass Baggers" as an alternative. Barry |
Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 10:58 |
Can you verify the source and background for the picture you posted? |
Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 13:27 | ||
That's not a tea party photo. That's one of those Westboro Baptist Church folks that demonstrates at the funerals of dead soldiers... the Fred Phelps crowd. |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 11:40 | ||||
Wow, that's quite a misrepresentation. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 06:36 |
I offer as a counter position that conservatives *do* say something -- they spew bile and hate. |
Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 14:42 | ||||||
Yeah, I agree. I'm a connoisseur of tea party pictures, and they're rarely that offensive. Mostly they're just dumber than a bag of hammers. DF |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 01:57 |
The term is juvenile and completely nonsensical. It SOUNDS vaguely insulting, but what does it mean? Does it mean that Tea Partiers run around placing their balls on the faces of sleeping victims? Or does it mean that liberals enjoy being the recipient of a teabagging? Or does it mean "teabag unto others before they teabag unto you"? |
thinman wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 15:08 | ||
Really? |
el duderino wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 15:38 |
hey you found a pic of a punk rock dude with a mohawk saying something extreme! how rare. |
Podgorny wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 16:44 | ||
You don't understand. He has a disease. This is what he looked like prior to his affliction. |
TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 14:08 |
Yup - grammar and spelling don't seem to be the strong point for some of them - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/4469684254/ Best regards, Steve Berson |
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 14:27 |
I know the picture I posted is from the Huffington Post although I can't find it again, even using my "history" menu item (yes, I'm that lame). The photo's title is one I gave it. When I downloaded it and posted it I believed it to be in reference to a Tea Party based on the context I found. If it is anything else I apologize to all for the error. Barry |
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 18:07 |
I'll readily admit that given today's political climate I am the last to realize something political is intended as a joke. Unfortunately when it comes to conservatives I believe they are capable of any stupid or dangerous thing. Barry |
Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 16:47 |
As far as I can tell, what they are really about is limiting the size of the federal government and getting a handle on the rampant spending. |
Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 18:55 |
Where were they for eight years while Bush ran up the deficit, put two wars on the credit card, data-mined the entire internet, and passed a giveaway to the insurance companies in the form of Medicare Part D? |
Quote: |
They're fine with large government and huge spending, as long as we spend it like *they* want it spent... mostly bombing brown people. |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 17:07 |
I'm certain my experiences are limited compared to some of you, but I would suggest that those who wish to really know what the TP gatherings are about should go to one, not rely on someone else to snap photos and/or report on what they saw and heard. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 12:36 |
rural electrification |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 17:30 | ||
Wasn't that one of Stalin's methods for slaughtering peasants? |
Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 18:41 |
I'll say this about all the Bush signs: Sure, there's lunacy and stupidity on both sides. Conceded. Absolutely. Where I see a difference is that the left tended to marginalize those moonbats. Every sensible liberal I know rolled their eyes in embarrassment every time Cindy Sheehan or Code Pink made the national headlines. Those shrill, tone deaf messages polled very poorly with the left. On the other side, it seems the "mainstream" right has no problem whatsoever with the social Darwinism / "poverty is a character flaw" / "Obama is a Kenyan socialist Hitler" message of the tea party. DF |
Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 01:51 |
Although clearly the target of his criticism is Congress, it speaks volumes about him that he would word his message in that way. |
Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 19:20 | ||
For what it's worth, I did go to a tea party in Alhambra and take it all in... for several hours. And by the way, THIS guy is not one of the nutcases. He's one of the organizers of the tea party, and owner/admin of teaparty.org: |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 19:57 | ||
It doesn't speak anything. John Lennon had a song entitled "Woman is the Nigger of the World." Same sentiment, right? In any case, this guy is not a "tea party founder," he was kicked out of the event at which the picture was taken, and he has been disavowed by the Houston Tea Party. The sign, complete with misspelling, is so patently silly that it makes me suspect the guy is a plant. Meanwhile, right here at the University of California, "moderate" Muslim groups are using student fees to sponsor speakers who openly call for the genocide of the Jews, and the Left responds with a big yawn. |
thinman wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 17:54 |
Obama's policies of nationalizing sectors of what is supposed to be a free market economy, |
Quote: |
his redistribution of wealth, |
Quote: |
It doesn't seem like a leap to me to say that he is a socialist. |
Quote: |
He doesn't like our constitution |
Quote: |
How about you? Are you a proponent of: 1. individual liberty and a free market 2. socialism with government control of the economy 3. all out marxism 4. anarchy 5. (define it if I left it out) |
Quote: |
I await your ridicule, scorn, derision, impunity of my intelligence and/or geographic location, my lack of ability to perceive nuance, etc., etc., etc. whatever... |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 18:11 |
but my experience was very different than yours, apparently. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 12:15 |
What form of government am I for? One that respects its citizens, governs fairly (with all paying a fair portion for tax), with health benefits for all, with free basic education for all, with unemployment insurance, with beneficial regulatory standards for all industries, with proper boundaries between church and state and a government that spends more money sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry than it does arming its military. I'll leave it to you to put a name on that system. Barry Just for the record in response to Bill's "Christian" comment earlier. I am a Born Again Christian who thinks his conservative brothers and sisters are modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 21:15 |
I am a Born Again Christian who thinks his conservative brothers and sisters are modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 12:40 |
Chris, are you being mean to me? |
Hallams wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 22:54 | ||
Never...just trying to be a funny bugger...but i see now how it might have looked a bit mean so i swaped the pics around..... I feel better now.....how do you feel Barry? |
Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 13:02 | ||||
All good mate. I know what it's like to have one's humor misunderstood. (and it's OK if you're mean to Barry) |
Daniel Farris wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 19:55 | ||
That's what they say, and I would treat them with so much more respect if I actually believed that to be true. Where were they for eight years while Bush ran up the deficit, put two wars on the credit card, data-mined the entire internet, and passed a giveaway to the insurance companies in the form of Medicare Part D? They're fine with large government and huge spending, as long as we spend it like *they* want it spent... mostly bombing brown people. DF |
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 11:12 |
My apologies to anyone I've offended. I did paint with a rather broad stroke in my Pharisees comment, but those who know they aren't in that group shouldn't feel offended. But that "brush" does paint a lot of the correct people. |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 09:53 |
there are some (many) who feel that the government is undermining the Christian's ability to serve. |
Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 14:34 | ||
Um....yeah.....right. So what, they're saying that having the government help the needy is somehow preventing them from helping the needy, so what, the government is preventing them from getting into heaven or something? I don't quite get this, Brad. Can you elaborate? |
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 15:41 |
A clear rationalization... Barry |
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:28 |
Brad, Mine is not a dismissive comment. It is a succinct one. And there is nothing childish about it so please save your vitriol. |
Quote: |
In my view, the philosophy you state is more convenient than it is Christian. Giving has very little to do with money and everything to do with the heart. |
Quote: |
In no particular order then... Jesus said, "Give to Caesar the things which are his". This can be interpreted in this day as "give to the government (an institution ordained by God) what it lawfully requires". This means pay taxes whether one is happy about it or not. This means serve in the military when required (or use the lawful option of being a conscientious objector). The point is, that giving to the government so it can provide services and goods to the poor does not deny God. It is obeying a God-given commandment so God is honored by the giving and the resultant good that comes from feeding and sheltering the poor. He is also glorified when government money is used for healthcare and any other service which benefits people. |
Quote: |
The second saying is "God loves a cheerful giver". This means one gives of one's necessity and not one's bounty. Giving of one's excess means little to God because it cost the giver nothing. So if one gives of one's necessity (what the giver depends upon for basic living) then one has truly given and God is glorified. So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't "take so much" or "do so much" is an outrage. One is still required to give from one's heart of what one has not what one would have if the government wasn't "so evil". |
Quote: |
Third, there is more to give than money. In fact, money is the lowliest form of giving. One gives one's time, talent, energy, ideas, love, etc. as the best kinds of giving. Money is the lowest form. So to say Christians would give more if the government didn't take so much is bullshit. The government is not taking anything from the list I just outlined. If Christians gave those things the world would be a better place. |
Quote: |
Lastly, people who despise the government and use it as a scapegoat for their lack of Christian love should be glad as they have a means to feel good about themselves without having to actually do anything but blame the government as to why they aren't better people. |
Dominick wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 18:46 |
http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/ |
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 19:59 |
While we disagree, certainly no hard feelings here Brad. Barry |
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 04 June 2010 11:01 |
I'm not here to convince anyone to be saved nor is it my duty to tell others how to live. |
YZ wrote on Fri, 04 June 2010 10:19 |
some time ago I read on Businessweek magazine an article about tax reform that included a few interviews with 'common people', and there was that 40-something lady who stated (near verbatim) that she was "against more taxation for the rich because she wants to be rich someday and when she gets there she doesn't want to pay more taxes" She stated her current income at below $50k/yr... -sigh- |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 04 June 2010 17:52 |
Perhaps this is why the Left hates the neocons so much: they are a reminder of the Left's own past. |
Berolzheimer wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 02:43 | ||
No, we hate them because their greedy self-serving policies are fucking up the world that we and our children have to live in. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 04:34 |
The philosophers who influenced the creation of the United States were Humanists and not Pagans. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 June 2010 22:15 |
...who thinks his conservative brothers and sisters are modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 04 June 2010 21:47 |
It just happens that the most socialistic Presidents in U.S. history (Wilson, FDR, and Johnson) were also the most militaristic and the worst violators of civil liberties. They sacrificed not thousands, but MILLIONS of lives, and for what? |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 09:14 |
For all of you, in case you forgot, please read this : Book of Enoch And remember, that he met the Lord... maybe that is why his writings were abandoned long ago. Cheers |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 16:06 |
Are you saying FDR shouldn't have fought Germany and Japan? You also seem to believe that Presidents are able to do whatever they wish |
TotalSonic wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 02:06 |
Ezekiel 16:49-50: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 21:41 |
It's interesting you should quote that. Many people think Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of "sexual sin". Truly it seems to be because of the reasons you quote. Barry |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 09:14 |
For all of you, in case you forgot, please read this : Book of Enoch And remember, that he met the Lord... maybe that is why his writings were abandoned long ago. |
Berolzheimer wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 03:07 |
That, Yves, is extremely well said. I hope you don't mind, I intend to quote you. |
YZ wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 04:30 | ||
Well, the thoughts are there but the structure... now that I had some sleep, the text looks so ugly... Quote away. |
Taproot wrote on Sat, 05 June 2010 12:18 | ||
Probably scared the shit out of Jesus, when he met him. |
PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 17:22 | ||
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. But the 'Book of Enoch' was not written by Enoch. It is part of a collection of writings called the (Jewish) Pseudepigraphia. It was written ~ 200 BC. It's also written in the apocalyptic genre which didn't appear too much earlier than roughly 400 BC. While the book was known and had some respect among early peoples, it was never considered part of the authoritative canon of scriptures for the Jews. And even though it is quoted in the NT book of Jude, it was likewise rejected by the Christians as well as authoritative/canonical, even as a book for the 'apocrypha'. |
Berolzheimer wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 15:31 |
I met Enik last year, only he looked more like this: |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Tue, 08 June 2010 11:16 | ||||
Good point... I know this... does anyone else here know about who really wrote this along with all the other books in the Great Book? Probably not. It would be interesting to find out why it was not considered important. Cheers |
Taproot wrote on Tue, 08 June 2010 15:04 | ||
I just couldn't bring myself to watch the new one. In my eyes, it's just outright sacrilege to touch that classic. |
Quote: |
Sir, Can you please be more specific? I would very much like to clear this up. Sincerely, Bill Urick ------------------------------------------------------------ ----- From: xxxxxxx@teaparty.org Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:01 PM To: Urick Subject: Re: Need to know if this is an actual photo of you Radical perpetuating a lie. -----Original Message----- From: Urick Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 10:22 PM To: xxxxxxx@teaparty.org Subject: Need to know if this is an actual photo of you Sir Please, can you verify if this is a real photo. Thank you, Bill Urick |